Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With the P-47s unlimited range and payload coupled with its complete invulnerability I am surprised it isnt still being made, in fact it is a wonder the USA made anything else. There is a fantastic series of Youtube videos on the P-47 explaining it all.
How else would I conclude the truth? As a fighter bomber compared to a Corsair it holds all the aces, first of al it wasnt a horrible blue colour, second it couldnt operate from a carrier which cuts losses by a massive amount.You watch Greg. I can tell.
The P-47 could.second it couldnt operate from a carrier which cuts losses by a massive amount.
They look like they are hanging on the propIt could take off froma carrier.
View attachment 816849
Never heard of a P-47 landing on a carrier ... but yes, it did operate from one on occasion (delivery flights).
the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador was a brief border dispute. Both sides flew Corsairs while El Sal also had Mustangs. The only victories were scored by a Honduras F4U-5 pilot who downed three planes: I forget whether one or two Mustangs or one or two Corsairs (FG-1s, I believe). I wrote an article for Flight Journal, probably on line.Were there any engagements between Corsairs and Mustangs in the Banana War's in Central America?
You watch Greg. I can tell.
How else would I conclude the truth? As a fighter bomber compared to a Corsair it holds all the aces, first of al it wasnt a horrible blue colour, second it couldnt operate from a carrier which cuts losses by a massive amount.
USAF DID hold on to the very late P-47D and P-47N. The only P-47 worth keeping for post WWII in Korean War was the P-47N (because of range). That version was a.) in very limited supply, mostly in east coast Guard units, b.) a major gravel gobbler unsuited for air operations in S.Korea, and c.) had no common logistics base in Japan where several P-51 groups were operational. Additionally, the ROK, SAAF and RAAF were equipped with P-51Ds.Brings me back to the thought that if the USAF had held on to the P-47 instead of the P-51D we'd have lost a lot fewer fighter-bomber pilots in Korea than we did.
USAF DID hold on to the very late P-47D and P-47N. The only P-47 worth keeping for post WWII in Korean War was the P-47N (because of range). That version was a.) in very limited supply, mostly in east coast Guard units, b.) a major gravel gobbler unsuited for air operations in S.Korea, and c.) had no common logistics base in Japan where several P-51 groups were operational. Additionally, the ROK, SAAF and RAAF were equipped with P-51Ds.
The P-51D could and did operate from Japan when the Pusan perimeter was so constrained that air ops were not flown on the peninsula. The P-47N could have operated from Japan also.
Factually, the F-51D losses per sortie were just barely above the F4U, and there was no analogous WWII scenario in which long range low level CAS was conducted in the same mobile flak environment the Mustang and Corsair faced in Korea - so we'll never know how vulnerable the combined oil cooler, pilot wound, turbo hits would have affected the P-47D/N ability to fly home.
Statistically the F6F was a better fighter bomber than the F4U, because of more protected oil cooler.
They did. F-47s were in regular USAF service until late 1950, and equipped Air National Guard Fighter Squadrons in the Eastern US. Activated Air National Guard units flew F-47s until mid-1952 as part of the Air Defense Command.Brings me back to the thought that if the USAF had held on to the P-47 instead of the P-51D we'd have lost a lot fewer fighter-bomber pilots in Korea than we did.
That's a possibility, but then again, during the War, there was something on the order of 10 times more F6F Carrier Landings than F4U Carrier Landings.+1 on that.
I'm not sure that many enthusiasts insist that the bent wings were on the Corsair directly because of the big prop. The big prop required a lot of height difference between the prop hub and the ground/deck. Going with the wing with even a small dihedral would've meant that the U/C legs are inordinately long, and long legs will be more prone to breakage than the short legs. Thus the bent wings - use this type of layout so the legs can be shorter and thus stronger.
There is a number of photos showing the F6F with one leg being broken during the non-perfect landing, but a far lower number of photos showing the F4U doing the same.
But what about the P-47s equipped for, and launched from Escort Carriers? (This was done to get the planes to forward airfields in the Island Hopping Campaign.How else would I conclude the truth? As a fighter bomber compared to a Corsair it holds all the aces, first of al it wasnt a horrible blue colour, second it couldnt operate from a carrier which cuts losses by a massive amount.
They did. F-47s were in regular USAF service until late 1950, and equipped Air National Guard Fighter Squadrons in the Eastern US. Activated Air National Guard units flew F-47s until mid-1952 as part of the Air Defense Command.
When the 405th Fighter-Bomber Wing was activated in December 1953, they were initially equipped with F-47s, until they converted to F-84s in 1953.
The thing is, Far East Air Force needed Fighter-Bombers Right Now. They had the F-51s available, Pilots, Maintainers, and more importantly, the Logistics Train to get them in the air immediately, and keep them flying. Getting P-47s over there, and then setting up new Maintenance Hubs, Spare Parts Dumps, (You're talking everything from Spark Plug Wire to Tires, and every part in between) and keeping that going would take too long.
The USAF, and FEAF preferred jet fighter-bombers. They were more accurate bombers, less vulnerable due to their higher speeds and shorter exposure time to ground fire, and were able to respond to a call for support in less time. As airfields opened up in Korea, and jet became available, most units that had switched from F-80s to F-51s switched back.
| Losses by Aircraft type, | Action | To Enemy | To Enemy | Operational | on other | On ship or |
| basing and branch | sorties | A/A % | A/C % | Percent | flights, number | ground, number |
| CARRIER-BASED, TOTAL | 147,094 | 0.97 | 0.31 | 0.68 | 1,988 | 974 |
| Navy Total | 143,357 | 0.96 | 0.30 | 0.68 | 1,932 | 936 |
| F6F | 62,240 | 0.86 | 0.39 | 0.52 | 829 | 403 |
| F4U, FG | 6,488 | 1.43 | 0.28 | 0.74 | 182 | 76 |
| FM | 12,925 | 0.48 | 0.10 | 0.58 | 283 | 71 |
| F4F | 1,102 | 1.54 | 4.26 | 2.81 | 49 | 22 |
| SB2C, SBW | 18,808 | 1.42 | 0.10 | 1.16 | 184 | 88 |
| SBD | 6,048 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.79 | 65 | 35 |
| TBF, TBM | 35,564 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 0.65 | 339 | 227 |
| TBD | 182 | 6.04 | 13.74 | 4.40 | 1 | 14 |
| Marine Total | 3,737 | 1.36 | 0.43 | 0.59 | 56 | 38 |
| F4U, FG | 3,093 | 1.42 | 0.52 | 0.68 | 47 | 38 |
| F6F | 146 | 1.37 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 8 | 0 |
| F4F | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 50.00 | 0 | 0 |
| TBM | 496 | 1.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 |
| LAND-BASED TOTAL | 136,979 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.25 | 1,057 | 339 |
| Marine Total | 114,127 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 724 | 135 |
| F4U, FG | 52,852 | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 458 | 48 |
| F6F | 1,646 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 27 | 5 |
| F4F | 1,074 | 0.37 | 6.98 | 1.02 | 34 | 26 |
| F2A | 25 | 0.00 | 56.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| SBD | 40,872 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 104 | 36 |
| SB2C, SBW | 2,023 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 13 | 0 |
| SB2U | 17 | 5.88 | 5.88 | 17.65 | 1 | 0 |
| TBF, TBM | 7,151 | 0.74 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 56 | 16 |
| PBJ | 8,390 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 23 | 2 |
| PV | 52 | 1.92 | 1.92 | 0.00 | 5 | 2 |
| PB4Y | 16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| PBY | 9 | 0.00 | 11.11 | 0.00 | 3 | 0 |
| Navy Total | 21,373 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.39 | 333 | 202 |
| F6F | 2,470 | 0.32 | 0.93 | 0.65 | 21 | 5 |
| F4U | 1,269 | 0.39 | 1.10 | 0.32 | 5 | 0 |
| F4F, FM | 450 | 0.67 | 12.44 | 1.56 | 29 | 20 |
| SBD | 5,283 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.08 | 55 | 19 |
| SB2C, SBW | 332 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 2 | 6 |
| TBF, TBM | 3,290 | 0.49 | 0.27 | 0.46 | 20 | 3 |
| PB4Y | 3,624 | 1.66 | 0.77 | 0.50 | 85 | 72 |
| PV | 2,636 | 1.06 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 34 | 22 |
| PBY | 1,371 | 1.09 | 2.55 | 0.36 | 47 | 43 |
| PBM | 506 | 2.57 | 0.59 | 0.20 | 33 | 9 |
| PB2Y | 142 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.70 | 2 | 3 |
| Service Unknown | 1,479 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0 | 2 |
| F4U | 349 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 2 |
| F6F | 28 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| VF type unknown | 440 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| SBD | 484 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0 | 0 |
| TBF | 137 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| VPB type unknown | 41 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| GRAND TOTAL | 284,073 | 0.70 | 0.32 | 0.47 | 3,045 | 1,313 |
Thanks, Geoff.USN Statistics transcribed by R Leonard.
The USN definition of Action Sortie is the aircraft or at least one of its formation saw combat, as a result this under counts the total number of sorties. The data below is the number of action sorties then the percentage losses, to AA to A/c and operational. Next are total losses on other flights and when then their base was attacked. The figures do not detail what other flights were or how many of them occurred, it is probably not safe to assume they reliably relate to the number of action sorties.
Another factor is when the sorties took place, accident rates tended to climb early in the war then decline, a hint of that is in the F4F versus FM operational loss rates. The bigger the carrier the generally lower the accident rate, the land based aircraft had fewer operational losses percentage wise. The USN reports 5,164 night sorties by land based and 636 by carrier based aircraft (note that is sorties NOT action sorties), with predictably higher operational loss rates than day operations.
Losses by Aircraft type, Action To Enemy To Enemy Operational on other On ship or basing and branch sorties A/A % A/C % Percent flights, number ground, number CARRIER-BASED, TOTAL 147,094 0.97 0.31 0.68 1,988 974 Navy Total 143,357 0.96 0.30 0.68 1,932 936 F6F 62,240 0.86 0.39 0.52 829 403 F4U, FG 6,488 1.43 0.28 0.74 182 76 FM 12,925 0.48 0.10 0.58 283 71 F4F 1,102 1.54 4.26 2.81 49 22 SB2C, SBW 18,808 1.42 0.10 1.16 184 88 SBD 6,048 0.66 0.71 0.79 65 35 TBF, TBM 35,564 0.98 0.08 0.65 339 227 TBD 182 6.04 13.74 4.40 1 14 Marine Total 3,737 1.36 0.43 0.59 56 38 F4U, FG 3,093 1.42 0.52 0.68 47 38 F6F 146 1.37 0.00 0.00 8 0 F4F 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0 0 TBM 496 1.01 0.00 0.00 1 0 LAND-BASED TOTAL 136,979 0.40 0.33 0.25 1,057 339 Marine Total 114,127 0.34 0.24 0.23 724 135 F4U, FG 52,852 0.39 0.27 0.30 458 48 F6F 1,646 0.30 0.12 0.18 27 5 F4F 1,074 0.37 6.98 1.02 34 26 F2A 25 0.00 56.00 0.00 0 0 SBD 40,872 0.23 0.06 0.14 104 36 SB2C, SBW 2,023 0.05 0.00 0.15 13 0 SB2U 17 5.88 5.88 17.65 1 0 TBF, TBM 7,151 0.74 0.15 0.20 56 16 PBJ 8,390 0.21 0.00 0.14 23 2 PV 52 1.92 1.92 0.00 5 2 PB4Y 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 PBY 9 0.00 11.11 0.00 3 0 Navy Total 21,373 0.79 0.87 0.39 333 202 F6F 2,470 0.32 0.93 0.65 21 5 F4U 1,269 0.39 1.10 0.32 5 0 F4F, FM 450 0.67 12.44 1.56 29 20 SBD 5,283 0.32 0.23 0.08 55 19 SB2C, SBW 332 0.60 0.00 0.30 2 6 TBF, TBM 3,290 0.49 0.27 0.46 20 3 PB4Y 3,624 1.66 0.77 0.50 85 72 PV 2,636 1.06 0.19 0.46 34 22 PBY 1,371 1.09 2.55 0.36 47 43 PBM 506 2.57 0.59 0.20 33 9 PB2Y 142 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 3 Service Unknown 1,479 0.00 0.00 0.07 0 2 F4U 349 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2 F6F 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 VF type unknown 440 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 SBD 484 0.00 0.00 0.21 0 0 TBF 137 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 VPB type unknown 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 284,073 0.70 0.32 0.47 3,045 1,313
Possibly the USMC units were on average more experienced with the F4U to account for the difference in operational losses, the carrier based Corsair units look like they were doing more fighter bomber work given the AA losses.
Putting all the figures together and including "service unknown" sorties, Hellcat versus Corsair, percentage losses on action sorties to AA 0.83 versus 0.54, to enemy aircraft 0.41 to 0.3, operational 0.51 to 0.36, the latter heavily influenced by where the aircraft flew from, 93.8% Hellcat action sorties from carriers, versus 15% Corsair, the overall action sortie operational loss rate from carriers was 0.68%, land 0.25%. To give any passing statisticians a heart attack, to mimic the Hellcat sortie mix, multiply the number of Corsair carrier sorties by 6, reducing the land based sortie proportion accordingly, use the average carrier and land based action sortie operational loss figures and the Corsair action sortie operational loss figure becomes 0.64%. Whatever the exact number the figures indicate the Corsair had the higher action sortie operational loss percentage.
Thanks, Geoff.
Some thoughts - These numbers are for the whole war, if I understand them correctly. The nature of the Combat Losses depends on the nature of the fight. I don't think too many people would expect the SB2C to have such a low level of Air-Air losses if it had been flying in the Coral Sea/Midway/Solomon Islands environment. I expect that there were more Air-Air encounters vs Ground Attack sorties in 1943-early 1944, which would skew the Air-Air numbers lower for the Corsair. As for Marine Ground Based Operational Losses vs. Navy Carrier Based losses of the F4U, There's a big difference between landing on an airstrip, and on a Carrier, particularly a Straight-Deck, and especially with parked airplanes on the forward part of the flight deck. For all the arguments that can, and have, been made of the merits of the Hellcat vs the Corsair, the one that no one disputes is that the Hellcat was much better around the Boat than the Corsair. Short of Combat, (And sometimes even then) that's about the most dangerous thing you can do with an airplane.
USN Statistics transcribed by R Leonard.
The USN definition of Action Sortie is the aircraft or at least one of its formation saw combat, as a result this under counts the total number of sorties. The data below is the number of action sorties then the percentage losses, to AA to A/c and operational. Next are total losses on other flights and when then their base was attacked. The figures do not detail what other flights were or how many of them occurred, it is probably not safe to assume they reliably relate to the number of action sorties.
Another factor is when the sorties took place, accident rates tended to climb early in the war then decline, a hint of that is in the F4F versus FM operational loss rates. The bigger the carrier the generally lower the accident rate, the land based aircraft had fewer operational losses percentage wise. The USN reports 5,164 night sorties by land based and 636 by carrier based aircraft (note that is sorties NOT action sorties), with predictably higher operational loss rates than day operations.
Losses by Aircraft type, Action To Enemy To Enemy Operational on other On ship or basing and branch sorties A/A % A/C % Percent flights, number ground, number CARRIER-BASED, TOTAL 147,094 0.97 0.31 0.68 1,988 974 Navy Total 143,357 0.96 0.30 0.68 1,932 936 F6F 62,240 0.86 0.39 0.52 829 403 F4U, FG 6,488 1.43 0.28 0.74 182 76 FM 12,925 0.48 0.10 0.58 283 71 F4F 1,102 1.54 4.26 2.81 49 22 SB2C, SBW 18,808 1.42 0.10 1.16 184 88 SBD 6,048 0.66 0.71 0.79 65 35 TBF, TBM 35,564 0.98 0.08 0.65 339 227 TBD 182 6.04 13.74 4.40 1 14 Marine Total 3,737 1.36 0.43 0.59 56 38 F4U, FG 3,093 1.42 0.52 0.68 47 38 F6F 146 1.37 0.00 0.00 8 0 F4F 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0 0 TBM 496 1.01 0.00 0.00 1 0 LAND-BASED TOTAL 136,979 0.40 0.33 0.25 1,057 339 Marine Total 114,127 0.34 0.24 0.23 724 135 F4U, FG 52,852 0.39 0.27 0.30 458 48 F6F 1,646 0.30 0.12 0.18 27 5 F4F 1,074 0.37 6.98 1.02 34 26 F2A 25 0.00 56.00 0.00 0 0 SBD 40,872 0.23 0.06 0.14 104 36 SB2C, SBW 2,023 0.05 0.00 0.15 13 0 SB2U 17 5.88 5.88 17.65 1 0 TBF, TBM 7,151 0.74 0.15 0.20 56 16 PBJ 8,390 0.21 0.00 0.14 23 2 PV 52 1.92 1.92 0.00 5 2 PB4Y 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 PBY 9 0.00 11.11 0.00 3 0 Navy Total 21,373 0.79 0.87 0.39 333 202 F6F 2,470 0.32 0.93 0.65 21 5 F4U 1,269 0.39 1.10 0.32 5 0 F4F, FM 450 0.67 12.44 1.56 29 20 SBD 5,283 0.32 0.23 0.08 55 19 SB2C, SBW 332 0.60 0.00 0.30 2 6 TBF, TBM 3,290 0.49 0.27 0.46 20 3 PB4Y 3,624 1.66 0.77 0.50 85 72 PV 2,636 1.06 0.19 0.46 34 22 PBY 1,371 1.09 2.55 0.36 47 43 PBM 506 2.57 0.59 0.20 33 9 PB2Y 142 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 3 Service Unknown 1,479 0.00 0.00 0.07 0 2 F4U 349 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2 F6F 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 VF type unknown 440 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 SBD 484 0.00 0.00 0.21 0 0 TBF 137 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 VPB type unknown 41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 284,073 0.70 0.32 0.47 3,045 1,313
Possibly the USMC units were on average more experienced with the F4U to account for the difference in operational losses, the carrier based Corsair units look like they were doing more fighter bomber work given the AA losses.
Putting all the figures together and including "service unknown" sorties, Hellcat versus Corsair, percentage losses on action sorties to AA 0.83 versus 0.54, to enemy aircraft 0.41 to 0.3, operational 0.51 to 0.36, the latter heavily influenced by where the aircraft flew from, 93.8% Hellcat action sorties from carriers, versus 15% Corsair, the overall action sortie operational loss rate from carriers was 0.68%, land 0.25%. To give any passing statisticians a heart attack, to mimic the Hellcat sortie mix, multiply the number of Corsair carrier sorties by 6, reducing the land based sortie proportion accordingly, use the average carrier and land based action sortie operational loss figures and the Corsair action sortie operational loss figure becomes 0.64%. Whatever the exact number the figures indicate the Corsair had the higher action sortie operational loss percentage.