Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

Don't disagree...I was simply observing that V-1 kills were treated separately and I'd be surprised if they were included in a master list of Spitfire victories (assuming such a number exists). Also agree that ground rules need to be set for comparing kills and losses to ensure we're comparing, as much as is humanly possible, apples to apples. There are still many variables that make direct comparisons extremely difficult, hence the length and circularity of this discussion - the Hellcat served primarily in the Pacific while the Spit served primarily in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa which make it very hard to come up with substantive conclusions other than individuals' personal opinions (eg "I like the Hellcat" or "I like the Spitfire"...or the occasional wierdo who likes both!! )

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

However, I did read from a pilot who did the diver patrols that was the very best part of the war. Flying the fastest aircraft available over the south of England in the summer and occasionally taking on a rocket designed to kill his countrymen resulting in a massive explosion. Sure a V1 was easier than Galland but all together it was necessary and worth it. From his point of view it was just a skill issue you wernt killing anyone just saving lives.

I agree. It was probably great fun requiring great skill, as well as very necessary. V-1's were not escorted.

I would not say it is worth less, just not an aerial victory in the classic sense. Doesn't mean it wasn't necessary and doesn't mean it was less valuable. All it means is a V-1 victory falls into a different class of victory.

remember at that time they were awarding ac destroyed on the ground a kills towards ace statis...so a v1 would probably count.

So getting back to the question, what's the consensus? I'm getting confused. Is it the Hellfire or the Spitcat?

Seafire hellspit hellfire and damnation ...... the one that was pretty

bobbysocks said:

remember at that time they were awarding ac destroyed on the ground a kills towards ace statis.

Click to expand...

Not in the RAF.

Its the Spitfire, from the Mk IX on its faster, leaves the Hellcat for dead in the climb, is more agile and looks better.

No doubt the Spitfire over land or not too far from base and the Hellcat over water any appreciable distance from land.

For me its got to me the Spitfire for air to air combat due to its speed, climbing ability etc, for fighter bomber role maybe the Hellcat?

Maybe anything farther away than a Spitfire can reach and still get home.

GregP said:

Maybe anything slightly farther away than a Spitfire can reach and still get home.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you Greg.

The main range advantage the F6F has, I guess, is teh ability to hang off more and larger drop tanks.

That said, I think a XIV with a full 90 UKG drop tanks would go further than the F6F on internal fuel and still be able to out fly it.

Well, an F6F with no drop tanks, flying from a carrier in the middle of the ocean ... is flying a mission the Spitfire could not fly under any circumstances. That's why I said anything requiring a carrier would merit the Hellcat EVERY time.

So, take the range of the Spitfire. Anything farther away than that would merit the Hellcat flying from a carrier.

That's assuming it is over water. If it is over land, then ferry the Spitfire forward to a land base and have at it. The Spitfires could NOT fly the South Pacific missions simply due to range considerations while the Hellcats could easily do so since the landing field could move toward the target.

When Seafires came into play, then the range would be less of a concern and they could go where the carrier went while they were still in flying shape. But the Hellcats always still had the potential for greater range and payload capability. You could hang 4,000 pounds of ordnance under an F6F-5, 2,000 of which would be on the centerline. No Spitfire came anywhere NEAR that capacity ... and wasn't designed to do so either, so that statement is NOT a knock on the Spitfire.

The Spits had a completely different mission from the outset and were probably the best in the world at that mission.

Comparing these two is ludicrous and is really searching for missions that both would fly. Almost by definition, there aren't many. Hellcats DID fly combat air patrol like the Spirfires, but mostly in places where no Spitfire would ever be seen ... like the middle of the Pacific Ocean or over an island that could only be approached from a long overwater stretch. So the operational overlap was necessarily very small and not really worth an argument. Most of the time, you'd take a Spitfire for the missions the Spitfires were assigned to and a Hellcat for the missions the Hellcats were assigned to because the other one would not be a real option. You COULD assign a Hellcat to defense of the UK from land ... but most were being used at sea and simply weren't available for the task. Now if there were a few Hellcats lying around unused and if there were pilots and ground crews available, maybe the argument could be real. But if there weren't any Spitfires available for the mission you wanted the Hellcat for then the argument would be moot. If you don't HAVE the Spitfires for the preferred Spitfire mission, then by all means use Hellcats for it if you have them.

It goes back to the old, "Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me what it takes to GET it done." attitude.

No doubt that the Hellcat was a superior carrier fighter.

with regard to range, 1942-5 the Hellcat held the advantage, though in 1945, with the use of the LIII subtype, the differences were surprisngly minor. The BPF found the effective combat radius of the hellcat was 230 miles whilst the seafire II was about 180 miles.

The biggest advantage held by the hellcat was not range, though that was real enough. It was the ability of the F6F to haul bombs a lot further, and more of them each mission. The problem with the seafire wasnt that it was effective, or lacked range, or even, in the finish, that it suffered a really unusual accident rate. Its biggest problem was that it was simply too specialised. it was designed, built and used as a point defence interceptor, and in this role it was proven superior to the hellcat. thats why (or one of the reasons why) the BPF relied mostly on the Seafire over the other two fighters, as its main flet defence fighter. It was better low down compared to either US fighter. but there were so many things that it could not do, that the US birds could do better, that it made no real sense to retain the type on the limited capacity British carriers. The Sea Fury was a much better proposition in that respect

Love the Sea Fury.

One of the premier pistons, if ever there was one. There were probably around 10 piston fighters that could be easily interchanged with little effect ... other than spares, maintenance, and training requirements. I was addressing operational capabilities.