- Thread starter
- #41
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks eagledad I knew you'd understand! And I'm in full agreement concerning the USSB data....
Questions About Japanese Air Power - 1943
- Thread starter DarrenW
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
DarrenW,
For a good understanding you have to grasp how the Japanese pilot training was conducted. Pre-war is was very intensive and the pilots in first line units at the beginning of the war had 1000s of flying hours, many with combat experience in China, and for the IJA, Nomanhan. As these pilots were lost, their replacements lacked the experience. This was lamented as early as the second half of 1942, when commanders at Rabaul complained that the replacement pilots arriving lacked experience in the A6M, having trained only on the A5M. Also, the military culture extolled aggressive, offensive action and disdained self preservation, as seen in decisions to fly without parachutes, and the ideal of a virtuous self-sacrificing death in the face of bad odds. Hata and company, in Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, reports on the quality levels of the various fighter units during the war. By the time the Hellcat arrives on scene the experience levels have fallen to a point where most pilots in a unit are considered category C, that is barely trained.
For a good understanding you have to grasp how the Japanese pilot training was conducted. Pre-war is was very intensive and the pilots in first line units at the beginning of the war had 1000s of flying hours, many with combat experience in China, and for the IJA, Nomanhan. As these pilots were lost, their replacements lacked the experience. This was lamented as early as the second half of 1942, when commanders at Rabaul complained that the replacement pilots arriving lacked experience in the A6M, having trained only on the A5M. Also, the military culture extolled aggressive, offensive action and disdained self preservation, as seen in decisions to fly without parachutes, and the ideal of a virtuous self-sacrificing death in the face of bad odds. Hata and company, in Japanese Naval Fighter Aces, reports on the quality levels of the various fighter units during the war. By the time the Hellcat arrives on scene the experience levels have fallen to a point where most pilots in a unit are considered category C, that is barely trained.
parsifal
Colonel
According to the san diego air and space museum's website, F6Fs Hellcats claimed more than 5,000 "confirmed air victories" over enemy aircraft during the war, resulting in a 19:1 kill ratio. Some sources have gone even higher. ive seen one or two running at 6500, just for hellcats.
If that were correct, the F6F would have brought down of caused the destruction of (something like) over 30000 enemy aircraft. P-51s over Germany in 1944 were credited with 2500 victories to give some perspective to this........ You would need to factor into that equation both operational losses and non-operational losses, aircraft scrapped due to damage and aircraft lost on the ground.
In other words its a statistical impossibility shot down over 5000 enemy aircraft in air combat. They have destroyed 5000 enemy aircraft overall, including about 2000 aircraft expended as kamikazes after 1944.
Furthermore the Hellcat losses are bases on their own confirmed losses in the air, (ie losses to enemy air action, not including losses such as to enemy ground fire) whilst the enemy losses are on the basis of total aircraft losses and are based on claims data alone. this claims data does not accord to the best available Japanese records. . its a comparison of apples to oranges in other words. In actual fact, to all causes, I have read from various sources that Hellcat losses to all sources (within a combat theatre, losses at home spiralled even higher) during the war ran to about 2400 airframes. I would have to work a bit harder to get a better figure, but that is at least within the ballpark.
There are a couple of different ways you can make sense of this. The first is to analyse the claims data. From other more carefully investigated campaigns like the BoB we know that overclaiming ran to about 3:1 up to about 4:1 and as low as 2:1. The degree of overclaining usually was a function of the level of confusion in the air, and battles in the pacific in 1944-45 were about as confused as they could get. Conversely the USN had the most experienced cadre of pilots in the world by 1944, so one could assume that their error rate in claims might be better than expected. I would accept overclaiming adjustments of 3:1 as a valid estimate.
On that basis, if the 5000 claims are correct, and the overclaiming was running at 3:1, one can expect actual air victories for the hellcat equipped squadrons to be in the order of 1600 a/c. If Hellcat losses to achieve those victories were 263 a/c, then the exchange ratio is in fact is about 6:1.
If the 5000 mentioned by the museum is in fact an expression of Japanese losses to Hellcat actions, to get some semblance of sanity in the data, we should really try as best we can to compare apples to apples. That would seem to me to compare total Hellcat losses to the total Japanese losses overall.
On that basis, there were about 2500 Hellcats lost in order to destroy 5000 Japanese losses. A loss rate of 1;2. however, if the hellcat victories include about 2000 Kamikazes, either in the air or on the ground, the US to Japanese losses for conventionally used a/c run at about 2500:3000 or 5/6.
Certianly a long way from 19:1.
If that were correct, the F6F would have brought down of caused the destruction of (something like) over 30000 enemy aircraft. P-51s over Germany in 1944 were credited with 2500 victories to give some perspective to this........ You would need to factor into that equation both operational losses and non-operational losses, aircraft scrapped due to damage and aircraft lost on the ground.
In other words its a statistical impossibility shot down over 5000 enemy aircraft in air combat. They have destroyed 5000 enemy aircraft overall, including about 2000 aircraft expended as kamikazes after 1944.
Furthermore the Hellcat losses are bases on their own confirmed losses in the air, (ie losses to enemy air action, not including losses such as to enemy ground fire) whilst the enemy losses are on the basis of total aircraft losses and are based on claims data alone. this claims data does not accord to the best available Japanese records. . its a comparison of apples to oranges in other words. In actual fact, to all causes, I have read from various sources that Hellcat losses to all sources (within a combat theatre, losses at home spiralled even higher) during the war ran to about 2400 airframes. I would have to work a bit harder to get a better figure, but that is at least within the ballpark.
There are a couple of different ways you can make sense of this. The first is to analyse the claims data. From other more carefully investigated campaigns like the BoB we know that overclaiming ran to about 3:1 up to about 4:1 and as low as 2:1. The degree of overclaining usually was a function of the level of confusion in the air, and battles in the pacific in 1944-45 were about as confused as they could get. Conversely the USN had the most experienced cadre of pilots in the world by 1944, so one could assume that their error rate in claims might be better than expected. I would accept overclaiming adjustments of 3:1 as a valid estimate.
On that basis, if the 5000 claims are correct, and the overclaiming was running at 3:1, one can expect actual air victories for the hellcat equipped squadrons to be in the order of 1600 a/c. If Hellcat losses to achieve those victories were 263 a/c, then the exchange ratio is in fact is about 6:1.
If the 5000 mentioned by the museum is in fact an expression of Japanese losses to Hellcat actions, to get some semblance of sanity in the data, we should really try as best we can to compare apples to apples. That would seem to me to compare total Hellcat losses to the total Japanese losses overall.
On that basis, there were about 2500 Hellcats lost in order to destroy 5000 Japanese losses. A loss rate of 1;2. however, if the hellcat victories include about 2000 Kamikazes, either in the air or on the ground, the US to Japanese losses for conventionally used a/c run at about 2500:3000 or 5/6.
Certianly a long way from 19:1.
- Thread starter
- #44
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Somebody has a h-rd on for the Hellcat.....
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Somebody is just bemused by the excessive enthusiasm shown for the Hellcat, when any objective look at it takes off a lot of gloss.
parsifal
Colonel
Just so my position is clear, I consider the hellcat to be the best carrier fighter of the war. A 6:1 kill loss ratio is still rermarkable. a 19:1 kill/loss ratio is just fantasy.
- Thread starter
- #47
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Ok parsifal you win, I submit to you and your minions. For the sake of the adults that visit this forum daily, let's just stop the insults and end the combative nature of this thread right here and now. Can we just shake hands and start discussing real honest to goodness facts from this point forward, please?
Not sure where you came up with that number. That's six times what was actually awarded to F6F pilots during the war.....
Why is that? The USSBS believes that 20,000 Japanese aircraft were most likely destroyed in combat operations. And while I agree that there was over-claiming there still were enough losses to justify the original 5000+ figure at face value.
There were 2,462 US Navy Hellcats lost due to all causes (not including training and ferrying operations). The breakdown is: 270 - aerial combat / 553 - anti-aircraft fire / 341 - operational causes (non-combat related). Many fighters of the same period lost far more by comparison so I don't see why you are lumping them into the equation. How about all the enemy aircraft and facilities destroyed on the ground? Japanese shipping sunk? locomotives destroyed and bridges taken out of action? The list goes on, but you get the point. If you want to examine the Hellcat's overall losses then you must also look at it's other contributions to the war besides aerial combat in order to make sound judgments concerning it's effectiveness as a combat aircraft.
Again, that is YOUR estimate, which hasn't been substantiated by any reputable study. I agree that the 5000+ figure is inflated, but so are ALL of the claims from ALL of the nations involved during the war. Hellcat pilots weren't alone in this practice and if anything their claims are more accurate than most, especially when comparing them to the air forces of the Axis nations.
Kamikaze aircraft were just that, enemy aircraft which were being used as weapons against the US fleet. Their destruction should count as as much as any other aircraft brought down during aerial combat. In a larger sense I don't see a point in separating them into their own unique category, other than for statistical clarity. If you did that then you should also subtract all the claims made against unarmed cargo, training, and transport aircraft by every pilot that flew during the war. As you can tell that would be utter nonsense.
FWIW, after some analysis on my part it would seem that of the 2500+ Kamikaze aircraft sorties made during the war around 1,118 were destroyed by US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. This would include those shot down by Hellcats, Corsairs, and Wildcats. The rest were brought down by ship AA guns and near misses experienced by the enemy during their final attack on Allied shipping.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Good to know Darren. I'm a tad overzealous at times.
I have two issues that frequently get me into hot water over the hellcat. First is the claim that it destroyed Japanese air parity, second is that it shot down 5000 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 263 of its own. both claims are gross distortions of the truth.
- Thread starter
- #49
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I think what is being missed here is that the US government has awarded this aerial victories to an actual person, and not to a hunk of metal that they so happened to use while achieving their successes in combat. And that's where I stand. It's the legacy of these pilots that I'm trying to preserve. The Hellcat would mean the same to me if it had zero victories accorded to it. The fact of the matter is that, without the human element, all of this would matter very little of anything to me....
- Thread starter
- #50
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I think everyone who has studied aerial warfare on some level realize that victory totals are never 100 percent accurate. I have analyzed claims most of my life and am well aware of this fact. But because this has been true since the dawn of aerial warfare (in every nation, and every war) I find it somewhat dubious to only challenge a certain amount of them and remain neutral concerning the others. I'm not pointing the figure at you per say, just historians in general. So let's try not to get hung up on this contentious topic any further, as I think we both made our points abundantly clear tonight.
- Thread starter
- #51
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
So Japanese pilot quality was in the decline roughly six months after Pearl Harbor huh? Very interesting. I didn't know that training suffered so early on. Good to know....
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Training didn't suffer at first. But the Japanese flying schools could not make up for the loss of veteran pilots. New pilots did not get the years of seasoning that the pre-war pilots had enjoyed. One of the problems that the Japanese were dealing with was a shortage of trained aircrew to replace losses suffered in the Battle of the Coral Sea. This kept Shokaku and Zuikaku out of the Midway fight while their air complements were reconstituted. Midway intensified the problem, and the New Guinea/Guadalcanal fighting resulted in a constant drain on trained manpower. Meanwhile, the air establishment had to expand to meet the needs of defending the newly acquired territories, further diluting the trained cadres.
OK, I'll let you off. But this time, only, lol...
My basis is, the F6F's weakness was, it couldn't turn. Not like an A6M. In a dogfight against an A6M, there's a fairer fight. But then, who's worried about fighting fair when you've got oxygen and the horses to get on top? Pilot skills aren't going to neutralize that advantage, which was a mechanical advantage. There's basically the whole support, right there. Plus, the F6Fs could take more punishment. Just wing an A6M, it's a cripple.
- Thread starter
- #55
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
According to the monograph Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II, since the F4U debuted in Feb '43 and up to the end of August that same year, there were 390 Japanese aircraft of all types destroyed by Marine air units flying either the F4U or F4F (the report unfortunately doesn't differentiate between the two). Does anyone happen to know the total claims awarded to P-38 units in the Pacific from it's introduction in Dec '42 to the end of Aug '43 as well? I would like to compare these amounts to the figures provide by captured Japanese officers, found in the various pages of a report which I posted earlier.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Total kills by the P-38 in the PTO comes to 1,700 - this figure is a total from it's first combat sortie to it's withdrawel from combat service.
I don't have a year by year breakdown.
I don't have a year by year breakdown.
- Thread starter
- #57
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Yeah, you...
At least I can still get a h-rd on...just kidding so don't take it personal!
- Thread starter
- #58
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thanks, if you happen to run across these figures please let me know. I'd greatly appreciate it.
- Thread starter
- #59
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Hi VBF, I like a lot of what you are saying here but I think you meant to say that it couldn't roll very well. The Hellcat was one of the better turning aircraft of the war.
There's no doubt about that, Greg. And it figured into the war, and prominently. By contrast, has anyone ever seen any film on the American "home front?" Those were mostly women in those factories. And in engineering and design, too. Grumman even had a woman test pilot on the XF6F. As Japan was going down, we were going in the other direction, gearing up.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
