P-38 Lightning VS F6F Hellcat, Pacific Warriors!

[Josh64]

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Each aircraft had it's wartime niche.

The F6F was a CV based fighter. Somehow I cannot picture the P-38 operating from Essex class aircraft carriers.

The P-38 was a long range aircraft. The F6F does not have the range to escort B24 bombers to places like Rabaul.

Variants of the F4U could perform both missions. The Corsair was the Uber fighter aircraft of the Pacific war.

I just chose these two aircraft because of their equal success in destroying Japanese aircraft. Putting aside Army, Navy, and mission differences, they were both the most successful destroyers of Japanese Aircraft. Since the aircraft are very different as you say and I agree, I'm just curious what people think allowed each of them to achieve equal success, because of thier differences.

 

[Josh64]

I see alot of good and accurate comments about the Corsair. But I chose the Hellcat because it destroyed twice as many aircraft as the F4U did. I'm just simply talking numbers when I chose the P-38 and F6F

 

[renrich]

This from Tillman's book. "Corsair", December 1943 during the fight to neutralize Rabaul. "Air Sols had nearly 270 fighters on hand.But 69 were P39s, ill suited to aerial combat with their short range and mediocre performance at altitude. Of the remaining 200, the majority were F4Us and F6Fs. The 71 Corsairs represented one- quarter of all Airsols fighters followed by 58 Hellcats. There were also 39 American and New Zealand P40s and 31 US Army P38s." " In other words the Corsair squadrons maintained an average two- thirds in commission rate compared to over 90 per cent for F6Fs and P40s. The complex, sophisticated Lockheed Lightnings were lowest with 38% operational." This was landbased air power, not carrier based. The AC must have been similarly supported by ground crews. It is clear that the Hellcat was more easily kept operational. The fly in the ointment is that the Hellcats may have had less hours on them than the P38s and Corsairs. But then there are the P40s.

 

[MikeGazdik]

The F6F was very good, great even. It was reliable and maybe the perfect carrier fighter because of its stability at low speed and on approach.

But, IF it had not come along, the F4U could have done the mission, almost to its equal. (or dare I say better?) The Corsair's only real shortcoming was its carrier landings, we all know that story, and it was ultimatley fixed. But if that is all the Navy had, shortcomings or not, it would have been the replacement for the F4F Wildcat.

Now the P-38 Lighting is a bit different. It was out there in the field very early. It too had problems, but it had range and offensive capability that no other allied fighter had at the time...anywhere! Not until the P-51B was there another allied fighter that had the range and offensive / escort abilties. If the U.S.Air Corps in the Pacific, had to wait until 1944 or later for Mustangs, how long would that have extended the war in the Pacific? Which theatre gets priorty? Europe or the Pacific?

As far as serviceability rates. I think even with todays technology, a twin engined turbocharged aircraft will always have more down time than a single engine, supercharged aircraft. Nature of the beast!

 

[evangilder]

Syscom, I never said that the F6F was a premier photo recon plane, you asked if it could. The answer is yes, it could. And it could perform that recon while still armed. But whether a plane can perform other duties or not does not dictate whether is was a good fighter or not.

On Mike's point about twin turbocharged versus single supercharged, I agree. Also keep in mind that the Hellcat also was air cooled. Liquid cooling systems add more things to stay on top of, especially on remote airstrips.

 

[renrich]

US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter?

The the role it served with the AAF, it's ability to perform multi roles and it performed when it was call upon.

 

[evangilder]

Let's not forget that it was a flight of P-38s that got Yamamoto.

 

[Messy1]

I guess if you go by kills alone, the Hellcat is the better fighter. But I do not feel this is a good comparison/scenario as the two fighters were made, designed and used for different roles. The Hellcat engaged the enemy more times than the P38. A fair comparison would need to be two fighters that had equal access to the enemy, or were made in similar numbers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Syscom, I never said that the F6F was a premier photo recon plane, you asked if it could. The answer is yes, it could. And it could perform that recon while still armed. But whether a plane can perform other duties or not does not dictate whether is was a good fighter or not.

Exactly Eric, I too am trying to figure out how an aircraft being capable of performing photo recon determines what kind of fighter it will be. Got me stumped...

 

[syscom3]

Exactly Eric, I too am trying to figure out how an aircraft being capable of performing photo recon determines what kind of fighter it will be. Got me stumped...

Now that I think of it, both of you are correct.

 

[comiso90]

If i had to choose 100 of either plane it would be the Hellcat if for no other reason than easier maintenance, shorter learning curve for pilots and lower initial cost. That doesn't mean I don't love the P38 and its long legs!

While there is no doubt the P38 would stand alone in certain missions, I believe the F6F is a better strategic choice.

You cant choose a plane based on speed, range and altitude stats alone..

.

.

 

[renrich]

As far as contributions to the victory in the Pacific, I can't see that it is any contest. Without the Pacific Fleet, the war in the Pacific could not have been won. The Hellcat protected the Fleet and enabled the Fleet to do it's job. It was also a good fighter bomber and delivered a lot of bombs and rockets onto the enemy. I don't have stats to prove it but I suspect the Hellcat in the Pacific had a record that showed it was much better in the fighter bomber role than the P38. In spite of another thread that is going on, if the US had not had either the Hellcat or Corsair aboard it's carriers, the war would have lasted a lot longer and been more costly to the US. I don't believe the same argument can be made as strongly for the P38.

 

[Messy1]

I agree with you 100% Renrich. I think the last half of your post #33 pretty much sums up the discussion as it stands.

 

[syscom3]

Even though the bulk of the skilled Japanese airmen (IJA and IJN) had been knocked off by P40, P38 and F4U pilots?

Remember the huge carrier task forces did not make their presence felt untill 1944. In which by that time, the air war had been pretty much been decided.

in 1945, what would you rather have defending your fleet against Kamikazi's .... Corsair or Hellcat?

 

[evangilder]

Against Kamikaze, I would choose the Bearcat.

 

[Josh64]

US piloted fighters killsl in PTO, Hellcat-5257, Corsair-2155, P38-1700. How does the P38 have equal success to either Navy, Marine fighter?

Are you Sure? I have seen multiple sources stating that the P-38 had nearly equal success as the Hellcat.

 

[MikeGazdik]

I believe those numbers are correct, or close.

The Hellcat was put into a target rich situation more than the other aircraft, which afforded it the opportunity to have more kills. Obviously it was a great fighter and it (and the pilots) cashed in on that and made many kills.

But it is the carrier task force itself, that gave the Hellcat its ability to be there. If the Hellcat did not exist, it would have been the Corsair. We will never know how the outcome would have been, but certainly the Corsair would have had more kills than it ultimately had during the war.

The Lightning obiously was restricted to land bases. So the range of the aircraft itself was paramount! IF you were to put the Hellcat into the shoes (and air strips) that the Lightning had to operate from, I say the Hellcat would not have had as many kills as the P-38 was able to achieve in the same scenario. Had the Lightning not existed, the Navy and Marines would have had to carry even more of a burden of the war in the Pacific. Or they would have had to wait until P-51's came on line in strength for the Air Corps to contribute what it did in the theatre.

In short, the Navy could have lived without the Hellcat. ( with the Corsair being available) I don't think the Air Corps could have lived without the Lightning.

 

[renrich]

Those numbers are, I believe, accurate and came from official sources.

 

[Josh64]

Wow I totally forgot about this thread, anyway thanks everyone for the contributions. When looking at this topic the way most did I agree it was confusing/difficult to make a comparison between the two types. I just picked the P-38 and the F6F because as I said they were the USAAF's and USN's most successful fighters in terms of aerial victories. I'll be honest and say I didn't think of all the other factors at first, but now I see why this was sort of a strange comparison.

I guess I should've done P-38 vs F4U as both were (well F4U was mostly) land based, and had more similar roles and achievements.