Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[parsifal]

The Zero was not that lightly constructed. From here:

This weight-saving design would indicate that the craft is flimsily built but such is not the case, for its strength compares favorably with many American-built planes.

It was an exceptionally well designed aircraft, and derived a great deal of strength because of that that design. but as HP Willmott in
Zero - A6M states very clearly..... " the whole philosophy of the Zero was dedicated to the fast, lightly built attack craft for use in offensive operations, there was no patience or ability, given the limited horsepower available for armour protection, or great rigidity in the airframe. As a consequence, the Zero was scarcely airworthy by western standards, but for Japan the design was exactly what was required. With no armour, lightness of airframe and absolute minimum of internal fasteners and fixing parts, the early zeroes weighed 4300 lb to the Spitfires 5332 lb, and possessed less than half the numbers of rivets and other fasteners". The lack of rigidity and structural strength meant the zero had a marked tendency to crumple in combat" Though all of this is well borne out by the Zekes combat experiences, the aircaft in terms of flight characteristics was able to absorb heavy flight strain because of the very reason of its light airframe weight and good design. remember, the original claim was that a heavy bracing of the airframe was necessary for an aircraft to be used in carrier operations, but clearly,, the Zeke, with about half the weight of a Hellcat, disproves that. The Zeke suffered weakness in the airframe that led to other problems, but ive never heard of it failing stucturally at a higher rate than its peers because of that light airframe and lack of frame intergity.

 

[GregP]

Altogether a very inaccurate description of the Zero.

It was VERY airworthy and stronger at the ultimate load factor than many western designs, including the Hellcat. It could not take nearly as much battle damage, but battle damage has nothing to do with airworthiness. The structure is quite rigid and it flies extremely well. Whoever wrote that probably hadn't ever SEEN a Zero up close and looked at the workmanship. It is quite well built and rugged.

It is made from thinner aluminum and lacks armor and self-sealing tanks due to a lower horsepower engine, but there is NOTHING wrong with the airframe unless it sustains battle damage. That;s when the light structure reveals weakness and not before.

 

[Aozora]

According to Wikipedia:

Every possible weight-saving measure was incorporated into the design. Most of the aircraft was built of a new top-secret 7075 aluminium alloy developed by Sumitomo Metal Industries in 1936. Called Extra Super Duralumin (ESD), it was lighter and stronger than other alloys (e.g. 24S alloy) used at the time, but was more brittle and prone to corrosion[6] which was countered with an anti-corrosion coating applied after fabrication.

The citation is: Yoshida, Hideo."History of wrought aluminum alloys for transportation." Sumitomo Light Metal Technical Reports 2005 (Sumitomo Light Metal Industries, Ltd., Japan), Volume 46, Issue 1, pp. 99–116.

There is a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy#History which suggests that Alcoa developed a similar alloy in 1943 http://www.alcoa.com/mill_products/catalog/pdf/alloy7075techsheet.pdf

 

[fastmongrel]

Did naval planes have the aluminium structure anodised to prevent corrosion.

 

[parsifal]

whether or not people choose to believe the zeke was strong or weak is a different question, The original question posed was that weight penalties applies to carrier aircraft because they needed to be stronger. Not true. the Zeke proves that. It was half the weight of a Hellcat, and according to Greg, a stronger overall airframe. we do not need to prove that issue one way or the other, I happen to equate its airframe strength to its ability to absorb combat damage, but it may well be valid to also note that did not suffer major structural failures as a result of its operations generally

The problems with the spitfires carrier operations had nothing to do with its overall weight or indeed, its overall airframe strength. It had a problem in its undercarriage strength and spacing. Somewaht addressed in the later marks

 

[Garyt]

I know this thread is about which was better, Hellcat or Spitfire, but the Hellcat's kill ratio against the Zero and other planes seems to be part of the Hellcat's calling card.

I think everyone acknowledges that the Hellcat had the advantage of better pilots against the Japanese pilots.

What I think though is often overlooked at least somewhat is the better radar and aerial radio communication the US had.

The US was far better at vectoring it's planes properly, as well as having better "intelligence" about where and when to expect Japanese planes. I would hazard to guess in the absence of factual information that Japanese planes were more often suprised by US planes in encounters.

Both the vectoring and intelligence are huge force multipliers. Just for an example as to how much of a force multiplier this was I'm going to use something on a bigger scale dealing with ships, not just planes. The US had the sucess it did at Midway largely because of advance knowledge, and being able to in essence "vector" defense forces there, and also have surprised the opponents.

 

[Njaco]

It was VERY airworthy and stronger at the ultimate load factor than many western designs, including the Hellcat. It could not take nearly as much battle damage, ....

I think you guys are agreeing on the same thing just definitions are different. This statement here probably sums up best the point each and every one of you are trying to make. The Zero was strongly built BUT its material was light and allowed it be susceptible to battle damage.

and its something I believe the Zero was built as......

 

[parsifal]

I know this thread is about which was better, Hellcat or Spitfire, but the Hellcat's kill ratio against the Zero and other planes seems to be part of the Hellcat's calling card.

I think everyone acknowledges that the Hellcat had the advantage of better pilots against the Japanese pilots.

This is the post war myth machine hard at work.

The Hellcat is claimed to have achieved a 19:1 kill/loss ratio against all Japanese aircraft, because something just over 5000 Japanese aircraft of all types, to all causes were lost to the hellcat, whilst combat losses for the Hellcat are quoted as being around 200-300, depending on what source you care to refer to. This was not a 19:1 ratio against the Zeke, and more to the point, Hellcats did not down 19 Zekes in the air for every Hellcat lost in the air. Further still, if a true measure of Zeke capability versus Hellcat wants to be realistically appraised, we should remove the last 9 months of the war for both sides. This obviously will greatly favour the Japanese, but in that 10 month period, over 5000 Japanese aircraft were deliberately lost as Kamikazes, of which something over 2000 were Zekes. How on earth that can it be claimed as a level playing field and a true reflection of each types capabilities is totally beyond me. And in fact its not intended for that purpose. what it is intended is a post war propaganda purpose, to promote the absolute supremacy of American Arms in a world of emerging nations eager to buy or acquire the best weapons. There was a commercial and neo-imperialist imperative to this myth.

Probably something like 90% of Hellcat losses were at the hands of the Hellcat, to about 50% for the Zeke. Excluding the Kamikazes, something like 4000 of the Zekes were lost in air combat, of which about 2000 can be attributed to the Hellcat (very roughly). 2000 to 270 is still a huge margin for victory, brought about in large measure by the way the hellcat was brought to battle. The US Fast Carriers would appear out of nowhere, strike with 8 or 900 aircraft, against maybe 50 and decimate the defenders. in the one or two occasions that the Japanese did get off the canvas enough to make a stand up fight of it, such as at Phil Sea, there were so many other factors at work against the Japanese that the Hellcats undeniable qualitative advantage really was of secondary importance. such was the material, manpower, training and technological advantages held by the US by the end of 1943.

Incidentally, to achieve those 5000 air victories, the USN did not lose 300 hellcats, more like 1900 airframes were written off

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat kills do not include kamakazes that were lost in attacks by hitting their targets or the sea. It includes manned enemy aircraft shot down in combat. Also, the claims in the Pacific were vastly more accurate than in the ETO because there were mo really big air battles with 1,000 planes taking on a large number of fighters and AAA. It was mostly a few aircraft against a few aircraft, rendering tracking the result exponentially easier for all concerned to keep track of during combat.

The Hellcat earned its reputation the hard way, in combat against enemy planes being sortied against it. Don't leave out anything. There in nothing inflated about the Hellcat. It was a very effective fighter, and remains one of the best Naval fighters of all times, plane for plane.

I don't happen to subscribe to the popular 19 : 1 because I believe reliability is a factor. I think all fighters should be evaluated with airborne victories against losses to both enemy aircraft and airborne operational losses, too. I would omit flak losses because nobody can dodge flak since you can't see it coming. If you do it that way, the Hellcat STILL comes out on top by a comfortable margin.

Alternately you could consider all airborne victories against all airborne losses of aircraft for any reason. If you do it that way, the Hellcat STILL comes out on top by a comfortable margin.

When I say "comes out on top," I mean for US aircraft. I don't have the real numbers for the Bf 109 or the Spitfire, or any other types since I have not been able to find the war summaries for other than US aircraft. I HAVE been looking for them.

I advocate lumping FM-2's in with all the other Wildcats and all Buffalos together, not just the very few Finnish successes as a type. The Finnish experience is less than a 10% sample, which is statistically meaningless. Going on with some simple rules, I'd would ignore the ground kills for airborne effectiveness since they are not airborne targets and were not defending in any manner. That is considered sacrilege by the Mustang guys who had a good time shooting up grounded German planes, but ground kills were never recognized by anyone until they became a large factor in the ETO.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, technically speaking, kamikaze aircraft were manned aircraft and the F6F's tally does include the downing of these.

You'll find that the Spitfire's victory includes the downing of the V-1, even though it was truly un-manned.

I find that in a case where a type downs an enemy aircraft, manned or unmanned, it counts as a valid claim. If the Hellcat didn't down a kamikaze, that was one more imminent threat to Allied assets much like the potential harm a V-1 posed if it wasn't intercepted.

 

[GregP]

Actually, I meant to say the Hellcat victories, which included kamakazes, did NOT include kamakazes they didn't shoot down themselves. That is, the Hellcat did not get credit for kamakazes that were lost to other than Hellcats.

To me, a V-1 is not an aerial victory. The target is unmaneuvering and defenseless.

At least a kanakaze could try to avoid being shot dow, WAS an airborne manned aircraft, and probably was faster than a combat type since it probably had much equipment removed. It was important to shoot down V-1's and there should be a V-1 category for some recognition, but it was NOT an aerial victory in the classic sense of the word.

Classically an aerial victory was a victory over an airborne, manned enemy aircraft that could reasonably be expected to be armed in the vicinity of a combat area. That leaves out V-1's and ground kills, though they would merit a separate category.

I'm sure the recognition of ground kills and V-1's was due to the local commanders wanting to keep up morale in their squadrons when such kills were getting to be more frequent. Nevertheless, it goes against all recognition prior to late WWII.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were many occasions were a V-1 "defended" itself by detonating, taking the interceptor with it. Of course, it wasn't due to a thought process on the V-1's part, but "tipping" or shooting at it posed a serious risk whereas shooting down a transport or glider, which also counted as a victory, was not as capable of defending itself like a bomber or fighter could.

In WWI, pilots were awarded credits for downing dirigibles, zepplins and spotting ballons, too...

 

[pbehn]

Actually, I meant to say the Hellcat victories, which included kamakazes, did NOT include kamakazes they didn't shoot down themselves. That is, the Hellcat did not get credit for kamakazes that were lost to other than Hellcats.

To me, a V-1 is not an aerial victory. The target is unmaneuvering and defenseless.

At least a kanakaze could try to avoid being shot dow, WAS an airborne manned aircraft, and probably was faster than a combat type since it probably had much equipment removed. It was important to shoot down V-1's and there should be a V-1 category for some recognition, but it was NOT an aerial victory in the classic sense of the word.

Classically an aerial victory was a victory over an airborne, manned enemy aircraft that could reasonably be expected to be armed in the vicinity of a combat area. That leaves out V-1's and ground kills, though they would merit a separate category.

I'm sure the recognition of ground kills and V-w's was due to the local commanders wanting to keep up morale in their squadrons when such kills werre getting to be more frequent. Nevertheless, it goes against all recognition prior to late WWII.

The V1 carried 1 ton of explosives. It was small and faster than many allied interceptors in level flight, shooting one down was a challenge.

 

[GregP]

A dirigible is a manned airborne aircraft that was armed. Sometimes so was a spotting balloon, though sometimes also not armed. I would award the dirigible, but not the balloon. At least the poor balloon spotter could be winched down and probably live. Not so the dirigible.

And I still would not award an aerial victory for a V-1. no matter what. We are just coming into a time when unlanned, armed combat aircraft are being deployed and they might very well should be a victory since they are defending themselves and even attacking on their own, but an unmanned reconnaissance drone? No way. If they start awarding those, it's just trying to make themselves look good.

 

[pbehn]

A dirigible is a manned airborne aircraft that was armed. Sometimes so was a spotting balloon, though sometimes also not armed. I would award the dirigible, but not the balloon. At least the poor balloon spotter could be winched down and probably live. Not so the dirigible.

And I still would not award an aerial victory for a V-1. no matter what. We are just coming into a time when unlanned, armed combat aircraft are being deployed and they might very well should be a victory since they are defending themselves and even attacking on their own, but an unmanned reconnaissance drone? No way. If they start awarding those, it's just trying to make themselves look good.

I dont know if they (V1s) were awarded as victories in the same way as a combat aircraft, however from what I read about the early days of the Zeppelins shooting one down was a very very difficult thing. They had defensive fire and you had to get so close there was a real danger of hitting it.

 

[stona]

And I still would not award an aerial victory for a V-1. no matter what.

No matter what? Well, it doesn't matter because those at the sharp end considered it an aerial victory.

The Luftwaffe awarded points (which counted towards various awards) for forcing a bomber out of formation.

The people who are the intended victims of these machines made the decisions, we, from the comfort of our armchairs don't have any right to challenge them. I expect the people on whom the V-1s were falling would gladly have given any pilot who destroyed one ten victories. It maybe difficult for someone from a country never bombed in a meaningful way to understand why the British and Germans adopted such measures.

Cheers

Steve

 

[buffnut453]

I'm pretty certain the RAF treated V-1 "kills" as a category separate from air-to-air kills against manned aircraft. In "Aces High", the compendium of aces from the Commonwealth air arms, the "Diver" aces were only included in the second volume which included additions/corrections to the first volume, the "Diver" aces being grouped in their own section. This suggests (to me, at least) that V-1 kills were not grouped together with other air-to-air victories by the Commonwealth air forces.

GregP rightly identifies radar and radio comms as vital contributing factors to the Hellcat's success. According to Layton's "And I Was There", we should also add signals intelligence from tactical interception of radio comms from Japanese formation leads. Apparently, this was a major contribution to the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

 

[rinkol]

At least a kanakaze could try to avoid being shot dow, WAS an airborne manned aircraft, and probably was faster than a combat type since it probably had much equipment removed.

The kamakaze aircraft carrying external ordnance would have been at a severe performance disadvantage. Also, I would expect that most of the pilots involved in these missions would have had minimal training even by the Japanese standards of the time.

Without disputing that the Hellcat and its pilots were very good, as others have noted, they enjoyed a host of advantages, including the very important one of being a major component in an integrated air defense system combining effective air surveillance and command and control capabilities. The US Navy had the initiative and could dictate the terms of the engagements.

Aside from this, the Zero should have been replaced by newer aircraft, but these were never available in the required numbers.

 

[pbehn]

I'm pretty certain the RAF treated V-1 "kills" as a category separate from air-to-air kills against manned aircraft. In "Aces High", the compendium of aces from the Commonwealth air arms, the "Diver" aces were only included in the second volume which included additions/corrections to the first volume, the "Diver" aces being grouped in their own section. This suggests (to me, at least) that V-1 kills were not grouped together with other air-to-air victories by the Commonwealth air forces.

GregP rightly identifies radar and radio comms as vital contributing factors to the Hellcat's success. According to Layton's "And I Was There", we should also add signals intelligence from tactical interception of radio comms from Japanese formation leads. Apparently, this was a major contribution to the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

I think you would have to, Squadron Leader Joseph Berry of No. 501 (Tempest) Squadron, shot down 59 V-1s, and Wing Commander Beamont destroyed 31....it is still an example of skill that should be recognized, other pilots just couldnt do it.

 

[GregP]

V-1 kills ARE a separate category from aerial victories, so the guys at the sharp end of the stick agree with me. More properly, I agree with them; they made the decision well before I was born and cared at all. It matters to the people who were there in fighters; might not matter to you, Steve, and I would not try to convince you otherwise.

Ground kills are also separate from aerial victories. It blurs a bit when you look at something like a victory over a Ju 52. Was it armed or not? It might well be awarded since Ju 52's were known to be armed in some cases.

This just goes to show that if we ever tackle a list of victories in here, we better start with the ground rules! If we award V-1's and ground kills as victories, I think I'd decline to use the numbers.