- Thread starter
- #41
Right you are, I'm not sure where the sources I was looking at got their info. I should've figured though, your stats make alot more sense
P-38 Lightning VS F6F Hellcat, Pacific Warriors!
- Thread starter Josh64
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Right you are, I'm not sure where the sources I was looking at got their info. I should've figured though, your stats make alot more sense
What may have been the F6F's greatest attribute was it's forgiving docile nature and tough airframe. Mated to the flood of trained but green naval pilots being churned out by the US, it made for a formidable combination. It allowed many a green pilot to become a veteran. So while declining Japanese skill and aging technology contributed to the kill totals, this other attribute, to me anyway, along with solid performance, helped turn the carrier TF's into juggernauts. Quantity has a quality all of it's own after all.
Kamakaze's require a pure interceptor as time on target is the biggest factor, hence, i'd go with the F4G if an F8F isn't handy.
. Better yet....a Stinger missile would be my preference.I still recall the interesting comments recorded in the book "Zero!" in which, contrary to the stat happy arguments that tend to favor the Corsair, it was stated that the F6F was more feared because it was both fast 'and' very maneuverable whereas the Corsair was extremely fast but with enough warning they could get out of it's way.
The P-38 simply gave them coniption fits because of it's ability to dive out from the stratosphere and then zoom back up into that thin air thx to it's turbo-superchargers.
Comparing P-38 F6F is like comparing apples oranges. The main plus for the P-38 was that it was available in time to confront Japanese in time they were having upper hand, while F6F have had the luxury to fight an enemy already decimated, both in quantity quality.
On the other hand, P-38 was not employed aboard CVs, and it was more expensive, though not prohibitively for USA.
So IMO both lovely planes complemented each other in PTO.
On the other hand, P-38 was not employed aboard CVs, and it was more expensive, though not prohibitively for USA.
So IMO both lovely planes complemented each other in PTO.
I read something a Japanese ace said about the F6F. He said, "It would get behind you and just shower you with bullets, it was awful".
All the stuff you said about the F6F is true. Simple, rugged, easy to fly. Add to that, faster than the fastest Zero and with an ammo load that allowed it to put out a lot of lead for a while.
While I like the F4U, I'd rather fly the F6F.
IMHO
drgondog
Major
About the only thing can be said about comparing these two in the PTO is that they were both high performance fighters with widely diverging mission profiles, one having more flexibility to perform mission (F6F - both carrier and land capable), one having a more range, better climb and acceleration and a second engine security blanket (P-38 ).
For land based comparisons (only) the 38 was more flexible as either an interceptor, long range escort, recon and fighter bomber - but the F6f by virtue of its carrier qual could do the sme things, not quite as well - but one hell of a lot further away and closer to Japan's center of gravity.
After that the single most important aspect of the Hellcat is that it had a huge tactical footprint - and able to deploy deep into Japanese held territory by virtue of being taxied to and from by Carrier battle groups - while the P-38 had to wait for forward land bases to be taken and constructed - but necessarily far behind the F6F possible deployments.
For land based comparisons (only) the 38 was more flexible as either an interceptor, long range escort, recon and fighter bomber - but the F6f by virtue of its carrier qual could do the sme things, not quite as well - but one hell of a lot further away and closer to Japan's center of gravity.
After that the single most important aspect of the Hellcat is that it had a huge tactical footprint - and able to deploy deep into Japanese held territory by virtue of being taxied to and from by Carrier battle groups - while the P-38 had to wait for forward land bases to be taken and constructed - but necessarily far behind the F6F possible deployments.
Last edited by a moderator:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
This thread is about P38 and F6F which I think, the statistics show that there is no comparison as to their impact in the Pacific War. After mid 1943, when the Hellcat became available, it was a workhorse. The Hellcat was reliable, sturdy, relatively easy to operate either from land or a carrier and was relatively easy for pilots to learn to operate. The performance edge the F6F3 over the A6M, however was not great. The F6F5 had better performance and it was somewhat better against the A6M.
An interesting comparison regarding F4U versus F6F is the report on the Williams site comparing the F4U1 and F6F3 versus an FW190A4. Based on that report the F4U1 has a significant edge in performance in every way over the F6F3. Climb, roll rate , maneuverability, Vmax at most altitudes. In addition, post war accounts I have read say that the F4U was an easier airplane to be a good gunner in than the F6F primarily because of better control modulation which contributed to better maneuverability.
An interesting comparison regarding F4U versus F6F is the report on the Williams site comparing the F4U1 and F6F3 versus an FW190A4. Based on that report the F4U1 has a significant edge in performance in every way over the F6F3. Climb, roll rate , maneuverability, Vmax at most altitudes. In addition, post war accounts I have read say that the F4U was an easier airplane to be a good gunner in than the F6F primarily because of better control modulation which contributed to better maneuverability.
- Thread starter
- #47
I see people are still posting how the comparisons of these two aircraft is wrong. Okay as I've said the only reason I chose the P-38 and F6f is because they both performed similar missions for ther respective services (air superiority, sweeps, and ground attack). I know that their kill tallies were vastly different, and that the F6F flew in the naval campaign, etc. Put aside kill totals, services, the difference between a naval war and a land based war. The fact that they were both the most successful fighters for each service is the reason I chose these two aircraft. Yes the F6F as a naval aircraft made a larger impact in the Pacific war because it was mostly a naval struggle, and gaining the advantage in this arena prevented the Japanese from gaining any further success. However the P-38's contribution in gaining air superiority over the Southwest Pacific, Rabual, New Guinea, etc. and therefore ensuring succesful conquests of Pacific islands made it one of the most important aircraft of the war as well. Yes the pacific war was a naval war I know I know, but it could not have been won without the help of the USAAF and other land based air forces. I completely understand and agree with what everyone is saying, and they are great points. I just thought I'd try and make it clear one more time.
Last edited:
evangilder
"Shooter"
I would be careful stating the Pacific was more of a Naval struggle. There were a lot of Army units involved in the Pacific as well and together they got the job done. That being said, let's not forget that it was a flight of P-38s that took out Yamamoto.
- Thread starter
- #49
That's not what I meant at all. I completely agree. Please look at all the previous posts saying that the F6F was superior because it could take off from a carrier which made it more versatile. The only reason this would be an advantage would be because it could go places that a land based aircraft couldn't and also enabled it to help destroy the Japanese navy which was what the core of Japanese power in the pacific was based on (this doesn't mean it accomplished more or was better than land power). I agree with you.
Last edited:
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Josh, the P40's and the F4F's had pretty much wrecked the best the IJN and IJA had to offer well before the USN had the Hellcats in any sizable number.
The P38 had its unique operating environment and the F6F had its. Either would have failed in trying to do the others.
The P38 had its unique operating environment and the F6F had its. Either would have failed in trying to do the others.
- Thread starter
- #51
I completely agree, there are too many aspects involved which make it impossible to determine what aircraft was "better". Obviously the P-40 and F4F fought very highly skilled foes, and caused attrition from which the Japanese never recovered in 1941-43.
I'm not saying the F6F was better, I just chose it in comparison due to it's combat record and versatility (yes just opinion based). All fighter types played such an important role that there is no way to compare them because none performed exactly the same missions under the same circumstances, yes some were very similar but all played their part in winning the war.
SBD (Dauntless) wrecked many of IJN creme aboard the carriers during Midway, too, hence making job for all Anglo-American fighters much easier.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The actual number of aircrew deaths at Midway is far smaller than you are implying.
Read "Shattered Sword" for the facts.
It was the attrition of IJN aviators in the Solomons and IJA aviators in New Guinea in the later part of 1942 and early 1943 that sucked the life blood out of Japans aviation resources.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Here are the kills credited to US piloted fighters during WW2 in the PTO:
F6F-5257
F4U-2155
P38-1700
F4F(FM)-1408
P47-697
P40-661
P51-297
As one can see, both the F6F and F4U supassed the P38 in actual kills and the lowly F4F came close to the P38 in kills. The P38 could undertake some missions the other fighters could not handle because of the P38's longer range. Obviously the Navy fighters could operate off of carriers as well as shorter landing strips. The P38J required 1080 feet to get off the ground. The F4F4 could do it in 710 and the F4U1 could do it in 750 feet. I don't have the figures for the tonnage of bombs dropped by the various types except for the Navy planes. The F4U dropped more than 15000 tons of bombs and the F6F more than 6500 tons. I suspect that both exceeded the amount dropped by the P38 and the F4U almost certainly exceeded the amount dropped by the P38.
The Wildcat was certainly the most effective fighter in the PTO during 1942, when the IJN pilots were some of the best in the world. Later in 1943, the P40s, F4Us, and P38s gradually took over the burdens the F4F had carried in land based actions but the F4F(FM) soldiered on from the Jeep carriers in the PTO and the ETO. The P38 required more ground support than any of the Navy planes, needed more fuel and more spare parts. All of those items were in short supply in the PTO, particularly in the 1942-43 period. Still the P38 did not have the availability of the Navy planes.
It is hard for me to see how the P38 can be ranked as the most important land based fighter, or obviously carrier based in the PTO in WW2.
F6F-5257
F4U-2155
P38-1700
F4F(FM)-1408
P47-697
P40-661
P51-297
As one can see, both the F6F and F4U supassed the P38 in actual kills and the lowly F4F came close to the P38 in kills. The P38 could undertake some missions the other fighters could not handle because of the P38's longer range. Obviously the Navy fighters could operate off of carriers as well as shorter landing strips. The P38J required 1080 feet to get off the ground. The F4F4 could do it in 710 and the F4U1 could do it in 750 feet. I don't have the figures for the tonnage of bombs dropped by the various types except for the Navy planes. The F4U dropped more than 15000 tons of bombs and the F6F more than 6500 tons. I suspect that both exceeded the amount dropped by the P38 and the F4U almost certainly exceeded the amount dropped by the P38.
The Wildcat was certainly the most effective fighter in the PTO during 1942, when the IJN pilots were some of the best in the world. Later in 1943, the P40s, F4Us, and P38s gradually took over the burdens the F4F had carried in land based actions but the F4F(FM) soldiered on from the Jeep carriers in the PTO and the ETO. The P38 required more ground support than any of the Navy planes, needed more fuel and more spare parts. All of those items were in short supply in the PTO, particularly in the 1942-43 period. Still the P38 did not have the availability of the Navy planes.
It is hard for me to see how the P38 can be ranked as the most important land based fighter, or obviously carrier based in the PTO in WW2.
Glider
Captain
I think we all agree that this is not comparing like with like, one is a long ranged land fighter, the other a naval fighter. For that reason the who shot the most down isn't really fair. Naval forces were attacked by large numbers of aircraft, numbers that land based units would be most unlikely to ever see, so the numbers game is I believe to be of limited value.
Another way of looking at this question is to look at the impact on the war if either plane had not existed.
The P38 - no other aircraft could cover this role until the arrival of the Mustang and P47. However I do not believe that the loss of the P38 would have significantly hindered the war on land. There is no doubt that some headline missions were of value but for instance the survival of Yamamoto would not have been the end of the world. Japan was beaten by better logistics, numbers and training, none of which Yamamoto could have influenced one jot.
The Hellcat. The Wildcat held the ring and achieved great things but its my belief that the Hellcat is the plane that broke the JNAF. The Wildcat would have struggled against the more modern IJN fighters, even the A6M5 with its better speed and improved dive was a major threat. Without the Hellcat the island jumping campaign would be at risk and the end of the war delayed. Without the Hellcat the USN would have to wait for the Corsair, which wasn't routinely deployed at sea until quite late in the war. Indeed if you look at the OOB at the end of the war, its striking that almost all the Corsairs at sea in the USN were on the Essex Class carriers, none on the others.
So there you have it. My vote for the most important aircraft of the two is the Hellcat, not because I believe it to be the best of the two, but because its loss would have had a greater impact on the war.
Another way of looking at this question is to look at the impact on the war if either plane had not existed.
The P38 - no other aircraft could cover this role until the arrival of the Mustang and P47. However I do not believe that the loss of the P38 would have significantly hindered the war on land. There is no doubt that some headline missions were of value but for instance the survival of Yamamoto would not have been the end of the world. Japan was beaten by better logistics, numbers and training, none of which Yamamoto could have influenced one jot.
The Hellcat. The Wildcat held the ring and achieved great things but its my belief that the Hellcat is the plane that broke the JNAF. The Wildcat would have struggled against the more modern IJN fighters, even the A6M5 with its better speed and improved dive was a major threat. Without the Hellcat the island jumping campaign would be at risk and the end of the war delayed. Without the Hellcat the USN would have to wait for the Corsair, which wasn't routinely deployed at sea until quite late in the war. Indeed if you look at the OOB at the end of the war, its striking that almost all the Corsairs at sea in the USN were on the Essex Class carriers, none on the others.
So there you have it. My vote for the most important aircraft of the two is the Hellcat, not because I believe it to be the best of the two, but because its loss would have had a greater impact on the war.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Good analysis, Glider. Good point about Yamamoto, his loss wasn't a game changer, but I am sure it was a morale boost for the US.
Shortround6
Major General
Part of it is timing.
While the F6F was deployed on Carriers well before the F4U the British were Flying the F4U from carriers well before the US navy. With no F6F I believe the F4U would have found it's way onto US carriers earlier. Maybe more accidents but still?
The other bit about timing is that for part of the war the P-38 carried the mantle of best US land based fighter (or best in the USAAF). It provided top cover or the umbrella that allowed the more numerous P-39s and P-40s to operate as they did.
AHT has some interesting production numbers. At the end of 1942 1687 P-38s had been built compared to 2871 P-39s, 6883 P-40s, 533 P-47s, 772 P-51s (allison powered) 1900 F4Fs, 179 F4Us and 10 F6Fs.
During 1943 2497 P-38s were added compared to 4947 P-39s, 4258 P-40s, 4428 P-47s, 1710 P-51s (most with Merlins but the majority don't start showing up until past mid year)), 1537 F4Fs, 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs.
It is not until late in 1943 that the P-47 takes the lead from the P-38 in production, Merlin Mustangs aren't showing up in numbers at all until the second half of the 1943, the F4F is being phased out until the FM-2s stage a resurgence in 1944. 1943 saw 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs. At the end of 1943 you had production totals of 4184 P-38s compared to 5023 F4Us and F6Fs combined.
For all of 1942 and a good part of 1943 if you wanted a American fighter that was good over 20,000ft and had range you had one choice, the P-38.
It helped hold the line and was the premier fighter at the start of the offensives. Could the US have succeeded without it? Yes, but it would have been harder and more costly and taken more time in the beginning. Every theater commander wanted more P-38s during those first two years because there wasn't anything else that could do the job the P-38 could. By 1944 the story was changing and by 1945 it had changed but that does that mean the P-38 was no good or didn't play an important role in the war as a whole?
While the F6F was deployed on Carriers well before the F4U the British were Flying the F4U from carriers well before the US navy. With no F6F I believe the F4U would have found it's way onto US carriers earlier. Maybe more accidents but still?
The other bit about timing is that for part of the war the P-38 carried the mantle of best US land based fighter (or best in the USAAF). It provided top cover or the umbrella that allowed the more numerous P-39s and P-40s to operate as they did.
AHT has some interesting production numbers. At the end of 1942 1687 P-38s had been built compared to 2871 P-39s, 6883 P-40s, 533 P-47s, 772 P-51s (allison powered) 1900 F4Fs, 179 F4Us and 10 F6Fs.
During 1943 2497 P-38s were added compared to 4947 P-39s, 4258 P-40s, 4428 P-47s, 1710 P-51s (most with Merlins but the majority don't start showing up until past mid year)), 1537 F4Fs, 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs.
It is not until late in 1943 that the P-47 takes the lead from the P-38 in production, Merlin Mustangs aren't showing up in numbers at all until the second half of the 1943, the F4F is being phased out until the FM-2s stage a resurgence in 1944. 1943 saw 2293 F4Us and 2547 F6Fs. At the end of 1943 you had production totals of 4184 P-38s compared to 5023 F4Us and F6Fs combined.
For all of 1942 and a good part of 1943 if you wanted a American fighter that was good over 20,000ft and had range you had one choice, the P-38.
It helped hold the line and was the premier fighter at the start of the offensives. Could the US have succeeded without it? Yes, but it would have been harder and more costly and taken more time in the beginning. Every theater commander wanted more P-38s during those first two years because there wasn't anything else that could do the job the P-38 could. By 1944 the story was changing and by 1945 it had changed but that does that mean the P-38 was no good or didn't play an important role in the war as a whole?
evangilder
"Shooter"
No one here is saying that the P-38 was no good. These 2 aircraft had very different roles to fulfill and comparing them is an apples to oranges comparison. It certainly had its share of issue (what high performance piston fighter didn't?), but it did what was asked of it, and it did it fairly well.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The only thing that seems to go against the P-38 is cost. I dont think any other airforce could have afforded to spend so much on a fighter. I have often wondered if the real reason the RAF rejected it was not because of performance problems (they could be fixed) but because they realised it would be a maintenance hog and require such a big logistics tail.
