I am glad we got thet figured out...
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
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
If nothing else, the P-38 is an interesting example of an aircraft can struggle in one theatre and excel in another. I'm sure I'm going to tread on a few toes by saying so, but in the ETO it was an average performer, and an expensive one at that. Sure, the tactics of the time put it constantly on the defensive as an escort fighter, but it's also true that it had icing and engine issues at altitude, and it's tendency to go into compressibility in a dive gave the German pilots and easy out if the 38 got on their tail. As one veretan said: "They could out-turn us, out-dive us and out-climb us – it was their show for quite a while."
In the PTO the P-38 shined. There it had a speed and dive advantage over the Japanese fighters it never enjoyed against the LW, and the climate and lower altitudes alleviated the icing and reliability problems. Had the Lightning only fought in the Pacific, we might all be surmising that it could have transferred it's impressive record to the ETO, whereas in fact history records that it did things much tougher there. This serves as a caveat for assuming the Hellcat, in turn, would have excelled in the ETO from mid- 1943. In fact, I'd say that against fighters that equalled and often exceeded its performance, flown by an air force that still had a solid core of veteran pilots, it would be silly to suggest the Hellcat could have duplicated its PTO record in the ETO. I think that against FW190s and 109Gs The Hellcat would have held its own, just as the P-38 did, but no more, and that it is nonsensical to hold up its Pacific record as evidence of superiority over other types that operated in other theatres.
In the PTO the P-38 shined. There it had a speed and dive advantage over the Japanese fighters it never enjoyed against the LW, and the climate and lower altitudes alleviated the icing and reliability problems. Had the Lightning only fought in the Pacific, we might all be surmising that it could have transferred it's impressive record to the ETO, whereas in fact history records that it did things much tougher there. This serves as a caveat for assuming the Hellcat, in turn, would have excelled in the ETO from mid- 1943. In fact, I'd say that against fighters that equalled and often exceeded its performance, flown by an air force that still had a solid core of veteran pilots, it would be silly to suggest the Hellcat could have duplicated its PTO record in the ETO. I think that against FW190s and 109Gs The Hellcat would have held its own, just as the P-38 did, but no more, and that it is nonsensical to hold up its Pacific record as evidence of superiority over other types that operated in other theatres.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi Tomo,
A few posts back you implied the F4U made contributions in 1942 and the Hellcat was introduced in late 1943.
Unless I have this wrong the F4U was made operational in the Pacific on 28 Dec 1942, making it, for all practical purposes, around the first of the year 1943. The Hellcat became operation al in the pacific in early February 1943, about 2 months and 1 week later. So they were in service for approximately the exact same time, within a couple of months.
I'm not too sure the F4U blazed much of a trail for the Hellcat in that short timeframe. They fought at about the same time, but the Hellcat was on the carriers in the thick of things while the USA decided whether or not they wanted to fly Corsairs from carriers. If I am not mistaken, deployment of Corsairs on US carriers was not until late 1944, so the Hellcats had a couple of years of a more "target rich environment" than the F4U did.
A few posts back you implied the F4U made contributions in 1942 and the Hellcat was introduced in late 1943.
Unless I have this wrong the F4U was made operational in the Pacific on 28 Dec 1942, making it, for all practical purposes, around the first of the year 1943. The Hellcat became operation al in the pacific in early February 1943, about 2 months and 1 week later. So they were in service for approximately the exact same time, within a couple of months.
I'm not too sure the F4U blazed much of a trail for the Hellcat in that short timeframe. They fought at about the same time, but the Hellcat was on the carriers in the thick of things while the USA decided whether or not they wanted to fly Corsairs from carriers. If I am not mistaken, deployment of Corsairs on US carriers was not until late 1944, so the Hellcats had a couple of years of a more "target rich environment" than the F4U did.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Neither plane did anything combat wise until 1943. The first Corsair squadron was 'declared' operational on Dec 28th 1942 but it was still in the United States. First combat Mission was Feb 13 ( no action) with first actual combat on Feb 14 (St. Valentines day Massacre with the Americans being the massacrees.
First US Hellcat combat Mission was Aug 28th 1943 by land based VF-33 followed in just a few days by carrier operations against Marcus Island.
First US Hellcat combat Mission was Aug 28th 1943 by land based VF-33 followed in just a few days by carrier operations against Marcus Island.
Maybe it would be best to quote a sentence from the post #86:
"Bottom line is that achievements of units eqquipped by F4F, F-40, P-39, F4U P-38 in 1942 - late 43 made life a lot easier for F6F when it appeared in late 1943. "
I've stated the time frame of "in 1942 - late 43", ie. from 1942 until late 1943. You are right that F4U didn't do anything for Allied cause in 1942, but they did fight in a good chunk of 1943, prior F6F arrived.
I'm not understanding that last sentence. Is it to say several years earlier there were no Hellcats?
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
OK, now we can all agree the the Hellcat is the best in the world
Sarcasm, correct? I can't always tell here
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The F6F Hellcat may have been delivered to the U.S. Navy in 1942, but didn't see action against the Japanese until September of 1943.
To expand a little on the part about the "Turkey Shoot":
The Battle of the Philippine Sea commenced on 19-20 June, 1944, and it was a solid defeat of Imperial Japanese forces both in the air and at sea. It was such a route, that it's been nicknamed the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" because Japanese air power was virtually swept from the sky. Estimated losses for Japanese aircraft were as high as 645 against U.S. losses of 123.
Two years earlier, the Battle of Midway commenced 4-7 June, 1942, where the Japanese to U.S. aircraft loss ratio was much closer to a match.
Several factors came into play at the Marianas Turkey Shoot: better radio communications, improved radar, improved and veteran U.S. pilots, poorer trained and fewer veteran Japanese pilots and the presence of dominant U.S. fighters (Hellcat).
Had the Japanese made better decisions and employed better CAP, the attacking U.S. land and sea elements would have fared far worse then they did during the Battle of Midway. At the Battle of the Phillippine Sea, the Japanese land and sea elements simply did not have a chance.
Last edited:
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
These kinds of discussions can really be a can of worms when trying to state which aircraft was better.
Yes, the Hellcat was responsible for downing some 5000+ aircraft but until the Corsair arrived on the U.S. carriers it was really the only fighter the U.S. Navy had to combat the Japanese while the USAAF not only had the P-38 but the P-47, P-51 etc. I think it would be a better comparison to total All the USAAF fighter kiills in the pacific for the same period. I don't know what that number is but I am sure it would be closer comparison.
Yes, the Hellcat was responsible for downing some 5000+ aircraft but until the Corsair arrived on the U.S. carriers it was really the only fighter the U.S. Navy had to combat the Japanese while the USAAF not only had the P-38 but the P-47, P-51 etc. I think it would be a better comparison to total All the USAAF fighter kiills in the pacific for the same period. I don't know what that number is but I am sure it would be closer comparison.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree - but understand that one of the participants in these discussions is a 12 year old...
Re. bolded part: let's not downplay the F4F, the USN carrier-borne fighter for almost half of Pacific war. Carrier-borne USN Corsair didn't became a factor until almost 1945.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Let's take a look at the total numbers of U.S. victories by type.
But before we do, let's also take into consideration the conditions the U.S. was operating with during the Pacific theater. The Japanese had an advantage at the start with good performing, long range aircraft manned by well trained and seasoned pilots. The U.S. started the war with older or untested designs manned by trained but unseasoned pilots.
As the war progressed, improvement of U.S. aircraft designs, better training and an increase of men and materials caught up to and passed the abilities of the Japanese ability to supply aircraft and trained pilots to the battle front.
This is where the aircraft like the F6F were able to overtake the earlier aircraft types with such high numbers of victories.
The following victories by type represent the PTO only. Any victories in other theaters (ETO, MTO, CBI) are not included:
F6F:. 5,160
F4U:. 2,140
P-38: 1,700
F4F:. 986
P-47: 697
P-40: 660
FM-2: 422
P-51: 297
P-39: 288
SBD:. 138
TBF:. 98
P-61: 63
F2A:. 10
P-36: 3
P-43: 3
P-26: 2
P-70: 2
P-35: 1
The numbers for aircraft listed above include all versions of that type listed. The numbers are as close to accurate as possible, based on various sources.
There may be some that will want to argue over the absolute exact number of victories, but these are presented to show how the F6F measured up to other U.S. types used in the PTO and again, taking into consideration the circumstances (as I mentioned at the beginning of this post) of how it came to have such a high count.
But before we do, let's also take into consideration the conditions the U.S. was operating with during the Pacific theater. The Japanese had an advantage at the start with good performing, long range aircraft manned by well trained and seasoned pilots. The U.S. started the war with older or untested designs manned by trained but unseasoned pilots.
As the war progressed, improvement of U.S. aircraft designs, better training and an increase of men and materials caught up to and passed the abilities of the Japanese ability to supply aircraft and trained pilots to the battle front.
This is where the aircraft like the F6F were able to overtake the earlier aircraft types with such high numbers of victories.
The following victories by type represent the PTO only. Any victories in other theaters (ETO, MTO, CBI) are not included:
F6F:. 5,160
F4U:. 2,140
P-38: 1,700
F4F:. 986
P-47: 697
P-40: 660
FM-2: 422
P-51: 297
P-39: 288
SBD:. 138
TBF:. 98
P-61: 63
F2A:. 10
P-36: 3
P-43: 3
P-26: 2
P-70: 2
P-35: 1
The numbers for aircraft listed above include all versions of that type listed. The numbers are as close to accurate as possible, based on various sources.
There may be some that will want to argue over the absolute exact number of victories, but these are presented to show how the F6F measured up to other U.S. types used in the PTO and again, taking into consideration the circumstances (as I mentioned at the beginning of this post) of how it came to have such a high count.
Last edited:
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
True, but I believe we are discussing the operational period of the Hellcat versus the same period for the P-38. This period also coincided with that of the Corsair i.e when the Hellcat became operational the Corsair was as well though they were land based at the time. The wildcat was also operational during this period aboard I believe mainly escort carriers but they were not the U.S. Navy's front line fighter (though they got their share of front line fighting in the Battle of Samar when trying to defend the Taskforce Taffy-3 from Admiral Kurita's powerful Task force though this did not include any Dogfights with opposing Japanese A/C) during the period of the Hellcat 1943-1945.
Syscom, do you have any specific engaments in mind where the Hellcat came out second best. I would be most interested in details of them. Were any improvements or changes made to to Hellcat once it started to slip behind or was its performance adaquate to not justify any loss of production?
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
These are interesting numbers, particularly the kill count of the Corsair. I am not surprised by such numbers. If one looks at the strategic situation in the Pacific you have the USAAF working its way toward Japan from the West ( i.e. new Guinea, Philippines etc.) as opposed to the U.S. Navy/Marines fighting up from the South and East of Japan. This operational area was much closer to Japan geograhically. The threat was nearer to Japan so its understandable the Japanese military would deploy more of its air assets to what was considered the more immediate threat.
Last edited:
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
And YOU understand that you are being a jerk. Yes, I am 12, but if people really want to know that, they can go to my profile. I am a lot smarter then you think, and while not as smart as the people on this site, about 60% smarter then people my age. You are acting like the bullies at my old school, calling me stupid and pretending I can't hear you. Lighten up a bit, will you? Please take MY feelings into consideration before you post.
CV-6
Wildcat
Major
Interesting figures. Do you have any info on the P-43 victories in the PTO?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The figures for the Lancer are somewhat vague, unfortunately. It seems that most of the victories scored by the P-43 were intercepting high-altitude, long-range KI-46 "Dinah" recon aircraft. There were 3 victories in the PTO and 3 more in the CBI for 6 total while service with the USAAC/USAAF.
The P-43A had good speed and high altitude performance (ceiling was almost 36,000ft./10,970m) but was a poor match for the Japanese fighters at lower altitudes. With some modifications, it may have become a decent fighter, but it's R-1830 radial was in high demand for the B-24 and DC-3, so any upgrades were abandoned and production stopped after 272 were built.
Calm down.
Joe was only letting him know that you were 12. It kind of helps people when they know who they are talking to.
Last edited:
