Hellcat Vs The Zero
- Thread starter Hellcatgirl5785
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes and your point? When the 2 met it was the Zero that usually met it's fate to the ratio of 19 to 1.
Wespe
Airman 1st Class
Hi rousseau
come on what are you trying to proof ? Range ?
Yes the Americans where taken by surprise when the Jap's attacked Manila, because they had underestimated the range of the Zero's.
But besides that you are comparing a 1939 under gunned build design (nice design) with a (ugly) ultimate high power killer plane designed and build in 1943 onward. Try the Nakajima Ki-84.
Wespe
The F6F wins this one, the Zero is simply too slow.
Still the Zero is very agile up until 275 mph, so unless you're going faster you have to be mindful of the Zero's maneuverability, it'll eat you alive if you start playing on its terf !
Wespe,
Regarding the F6F vs Ki-84 scenario - The Hayate takes the price easily. A more equal match to the Hayate would be the F4U-4 Corsair, now that would be an interesting fight to watch !
Still the Zero is very agile up until 275 mph, so unless you're going faster you have to be mindful of the Zero's maneuverability, it'll eat you alive if you start playing on its terf !
Wespe,
Regarding the F6F vs Ki-84 scenario - The Hayate takes the price easily. A more equal match to the Hayate would be the F4U-4 Corsair, now that would be an interesting fight to watch !
Per USN stats F6F's claimed 114 Ki-84's for 12 losses. Besides being just claims there was frequent mis-id of J planes, some of those losses for example can be seen to have been in combats with N1K1J Georges (see below). But it wasn't easy for the Ki-84's. Of course we'll say "pilots" but the problem always is we can't quantify the effect of pilots. In theory paper statistics would determine the capability of "plane minus pilot" but their predictive power is doubtful IMO even if they are completely accurate. There were many intangibles of "plane" beyond just a few stats like speed and wing loading.
And accuracy of stats: Ki-84 and F6F-5 is a good example. There is no certainty about the real speed of the Ki-84, even in theoretical conditions, let alone real production Ki-84's in combat. The "postwar trials" showing it doing 420 some mph seems from original documents to have been a calculation done by US intel, not a trial result. It was published before any Ki-84's were tested. The only true original stat is the official 388mph which is probably too low (for a machine in perfect condition). Most Japanese quoted speeds are conservative.
And even the F6F-5's top speed is reported differently among more or less original sources. The late war evaluation of captured J types v F6F-5 and F4U-1D (it's real contemporary, -4's only saw combat in the last weeks of WWII) showed, for those two production examples, the Hellcat was only slightly slower at most altitudes, less than 10mph, and that particular Hellcat topped out over 400mph.
If you decide one set of stats you believe, you can have do comparisons and simulations and say which fighter is "best" independent of pilot and all other realworld variables. I just doubt that whole process is closely related to reality in general.
re; flyboyj : "Yes and your point? When the 2 met it was the Zero that usually met it's fate to the ratio of 19 to 1."
Not to sound like a broken record but 19:1 is a claim not a real result. And, it includes all F6F opponents, fighter and non. In 1944-45 F6F's claimed almost 16:1 just against fighter types, but many of those were kamikazes.
Combining both responses, the Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results (it met F6F's, F4U's, P-47's and P-51's).
Joe
"Combining both responses, the Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results (it met F6F's, F4U's, P-47's and P-51's)."
By June 1, 1945, the 318th, with its P-47N's, had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. Certainly they weren't all George's, but you get the point.
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
By June 1, 1945, the 318th, with its P-47N's, had racked up a 79 to 1 kill ratio. Certainly they weren't all George's, but you get the point.
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
The Ki-84 was esp. deadly at low to medium alt, at higher altitudes fighters such as the P-47N did have the advantage. Some sources state top speed at SL for the Ki-84 as 620 km/h with the 2,000 HP engine, now thats fast !
And regarding the top speed of the Ki-84, well a USAAF test flight with the Ki-84 running on the cleaner higher octane US fuel resulted in the Hayate out-performing the P-51 easily.
And regarding the top speed of the Ki-84, well a USAAF test flight with the Ki-84 running on the cleaner higher octane US fuel resulted in the Hayate out-performing the P-51 easily.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
JoeB I was making a point. You could try to pick apart allied claims vs actual results all you want, the bottom line is by the summer of 1945 9 times out of 10 if ANY JAAF or IJN fighter was encountered by marauding USN or USAAF aircraft, the Japanese aircraft was going down in flames, either because it was overwhelmed by numbers or the guy flying it barely had 100 hours as a pilot.
Again the point is we can't say the number of real kills was actually 79, or what it was. It's just a bad historical habit to take claims at face value. In that case it's obvious the P-47N's were successful, any likely discounting of the claim number is still a lot more than 1 loss.
But, as a general rule people often do say 'this plane claimed X:1 and this one 2X:1, it did twice as well' when in reality the claims might have been overstated only 50% in the first case, and 300% in the second case.
Even the same plane looked at from two sides. My personal favorite, that's inspired me to research it, is MiG-15 v F-86 in Korea; 10:1 according to the US side, 3:1 according to the Soviets, *in the opposite direction*. If you take the approach, "oh well you can poke holes in anything but...let's just ignore that and use the claims" you get opposite results. One of those numbers has to be wrong, and of course in reality both are.
The other potential problem is unit bias, some of the other P-47N groups had some rough spots over Japan in '45. The classic in this regard is constantly quoting the claims of the USAAF 325th FG P-40's in Med; when they claimed 3+:1 v enemy fighters, but that was much better success than other US Med P-40 groups, and the 325's claims were generously exaggerated besides. It often leads to outright wrong statements about how the P-40 really did. My example is just one unit, 343rd AG, but it's the only one in the period where I know offhand the *actual results*, per Sakaida's excellent "Genda's Blade".
Last time you posted that link I gave a two sided account of one the 318th FG's combats over Japan in May which *was* with the 343rd Air Group, and the latter lost several Georges failing to down any P-47's. It's not possible to judge overclaims in that case because the 318th's claims were much more than the 343rd's losses but other Japanese units were probably involved too.
So not to nitpick you on 318th FG success, or general success of US fighters against over Japan in 1945, but claims alone are a very unreliable way to quantitatively measure combat success.
Joe
JoeB said, "But, as a general rule people often do say 'this plane claimed X:1 and this one 2X:1, it did twice as well' when in reality the claims might have been overstated only 50% in the first case, and 300% in the second case."
Joe B, you are right of course, we are all aware of both the bias and "fog of war" that led to errors on all sides. To quote FlyboyJ, "I was making a point." I should have mentioned that the kill/loss claim I cited was illustrative of that point.
In furtherance of that point, the P-47N's out of Le Shima were not flying top cover for B-29's at 30,000ft and were not engaging the enemyat high altitude. The P-47N, utilized with with boom and zoom tactics, could not be touched by the Japanese. It outclassed the P-47D by a considerable margin.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf
"The Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results."
Since we are on the subject of nitpicking, if "real" is intended to mean actual or otherwise accurate, where exactly was this figure compiled from if not from inherently unreliable claims?
Joe B, you are right of course, we are all aware of both the bias and "fog of war" that led to errors on all sides. To quote FlyboyJ, "I was making a point." I should have mentioned that the kill/loss claim I cited was illustrative of that point.
In furtherance of that point, the P-47N's out of Le Shima were not flying top cover for B-29's at 30,000ft and were not engaging the enemyat high altitude. The P-47N, utilized with with boom and zoom tactics, could not be touched by the Japanese. It outclassed the P-47D by a considerable margin.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf
"The Japanese Navy 343rd Air Group, flying the N1K1J George, a roughly comparable plane to the Ki-84, went about 1:3 v. US fighters in 1945 in real results."
Since we are on the subject of nitpicking, if "real" is intended to mean actual or otherwise accurate, where exactly was this figure compiled from if not from inherently unreliable claims?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
As my Grandfather said numerous times, the N1K2J was the best performing aircraft in the Pacific, and he test flew one of em.....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Any way you look at it, the Japanese were 1 to 2 generations behind the allies.
Consider a late 1945 hypothetical battle against the US.
P80, F7F, F8F and F4U-4's against the Ki-84.
Consider a late 1945 hypothetical battle against the US.
P80, F7F, F8F and F4U-4's against the Ki-84.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Or against the Ki-83, Ki-201, Ki-202 and the J7W Shinden... 
None yet ready for production in 1945 but then again, I don't immediataly see a P-80 flying missions over Japan...
Kris
None yet ready for production in 1945 but then again, I don't immediataly see a P-80 flying missions over Japan...
Kris
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Or against the Ki-83, Ki-201, Ki-202 and the J7W Shinden...
None yet ready for production in 1945 but then again, I don't immediately see a P-80 flying missions over Japan...
Kris
P80's were being deployed in Europe in Aug 1945. Had the war not ended that month, there would have been a couple of groups flying them in the Pacific within a couple of months.
I agree Syscom. The P-80 certainly would have been the horse to watch. On the prop plane front, they could have also reinstated the production of the P-72, an honest 490mph prop job suitable for high altitude escort duty. The P-51H was an impressive performer. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender.
The Shinden's range was about 525 miles. You can't win playing defense.
The Shinden's range was about 525 miles. You can't win playing defense.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Soviets claimed 650 F-86s over Korea - 660 actually rotated through from 1950 - 1953. That means the Russian shot down all but 10 F-86s....
As I posted earlier, do the math - even with the skewed numbers included and including F-86 losses from "all causes" there is still at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio for the Saber when you include the Koreans and the Chinese. The Russians like to separate themselves from their Korean and Chinese comrades so we will never know what the real USAF F-86 vs USSR MiG-15 kill ratio was but having worked on both aircraft and in speaking to pilots who flew both aircraft I would firmly believe the F-86 walked away the victor.
As far as WW2 - we all know the ratios are higher than history ultimately revealed to us, but then net result was still the same...
Henry Sakaida's book "Genda's Blade". He matched up the 343rd's combat accounts with those in US records, and that was the approximate total result. Naturally it was more favorable to the 343rd just based on their claims and losses; and more favorable to their US opponents just based on *their* claims and losses.
Joe
It's really nothing to do with working on planes or knowing pilots to calculate the ratio, but a matter of what the real losses were on each side. My point is you can't use 10:1 as innumerable books and articles have, you can't use 2-3:1 in MiG's favor, as many Russian books and articles do. What's the right number? you need the real losses for each side.
There's no reason to overstate the MiG success by counting F-86 losses to non-MIG causes; and you just can't use the F-86's claims (you seem to use the F-86's claims of around 800 MiG's to their losses to all causes of around 224 F-86's to get around 4:1, that's not a meaningful ratio).
In that particular case the actual number of MiG's downed was not hugely less than what the F-86's claimed (all three MiG AF's, Soviet, Chinese and NK together lost around 550, anyway probably <600, MiG-15's in combat to F-86's). The claims by the MiG's were much more overstated (900 F-86's claimed by all three, v around 90 F-86's actually downed by MiG's the official 78 was a slight understatement). As to ratios individually v Soviets or Chinese/NK MiG's, there's enough detail to estimate that, actually, since we know how many F-86's each claimed, and there are enough examples of specific combats to compare the general accuracy of claiming between the Soviets and Chinese (not greatly different). The NK's are known to have been a fairly minor factor so don't have huge impact on any of those numbers.
But the point is we don't know any of the above that till we know the real losses, nor in any other case. We went through recently, how per USAAF stats digest, based on US claims, the P-39/40's in the early months of the Pacific War were outscored slightly; in reality Japanese fighters had the better of it 2-4:1. That's a serious difference. The US claims were a lot less accurate in that case than in Korea. Or back to Korea, B-29's were credited with 28 MiG-15's; they probably shot down 3 (2 Soviet, 1 Chinese). There's no way to know that difference in claim accuracy on one side, without knowing the real opposing losses, or at least having examples of them.
Don't firmly conclude anything quantitative in air combat success, using claims. Good general rule IMO.
Joe
