Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by HoHun

I'm not sure about the difference between the F4U and the F6F as the figures seem to vary considerably depending on which data set one chooses to look at, but have a look at page 88 of the PDF: The SBD seems to be far more survivable than any other single-engined aircraft dive. I found this quite surprising.

But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges. On twin engine *fighters* again back to Korea the Marines concluded the F7F-3N was a basically more suitable plane for the main night interdiction in which it mainly served (in VMF(N)-513 mainly) than the F4U (F4U-5N in that case). It wasn't entirely on account of combat damage resistance per se but the whole advantage of a spare engine over enemy territory, and a second crewmember for a high workload mission. However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea.

Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit. In their own element of medium altitude bombing against field targets protected by only light flak they were far less vulnerable than fighter-bombers, or divebombers, which flew into the envelopes of those weapons. For example B-26's in ETO had a quite low combat loss rate because they often flew in such situations, though sometimes against heavy flak, and pretty rarely encountered enemy fighters. But again apples and oranges to a fighter-bomber mission profile. Likewise mediums could be effective against high value targets like ships or airfields full of planes at low altitudes (B-25 skip and parafrag bombing) where they could accomplish a lot in one mission, but not flying around low against battlefield targets where you have to come back day after day. An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

Joe

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by fer-de-lance

For survivability, twin engine has to beat out single engine.

For pilot survivability.. yes. For being knocked out of action, I don't believe it. If a fully loaded twin lost an engine, the mission would be over and in a tactical sense, as good as a kill.

True the IL-2 was water cooled but its durability is well is well known.

[Jank]

JoeB said, "But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable). The previous (1943-44) stats don't compare the same operations; F6F were overwhelmingly flying from carriers, F4U's from land, which were simply different missions and opposition besides the different characteristics of landing back on. In 1945 we're comparing just carrier missions of both, and it's a pretty big sample. Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage."

As you pointed out, the 1945 data is hard to quibble with. Frankly, I am surprised by this revelation. It never occurred to me that the oil coolers were a source of vulnerability not shared by other R-2800 powered fighters.

[HoHun]

Hi Joe,

>But note the explanation above, and also the notation in the table Jank mentioned (where the Navy concluded the F6F was less vulnerable).

Roger that. Maybe it's sensible to limit the conclusion as done by the report. I was not convinced of that the last time I looked at the data, but you might have a point.

>Add to this the common anecdotal complaints about the F4U's vulnerability in Korea, and I don't see much doubt about it: the F4U was not an outstandingly rugged plane compared to its naval stablemates, if that means resistance to combat damage.

I hadn't been aware that there were actual complaints, but admit I know little about the Korean War. Do you have any details? As a general observation, I'd suggest that durability complaints from the pilots who actually fly a certain type are rare and should be taken serious.

>On SBD's or TBF/M's that's a different mission, different flight profile typically, so really apples v oranges.

Hm, I'm not so sure about that, at least not for the SBDs which I understand would fly similar missions as fighter bombers did. Maybe the land-based FM-2 figure can be considered directly comparable to the land-based SBD figure?

>However, the tradeoff with twin engine fighters is they were bigger and easier to hit typically. The F7F was not viewed at being at any advantage in daylight close support, in which role it was used early on in Korea.

Interesting information, thanks!

>Somebody brought up also B-25 etc.: big twins were usually challenged in survivability when they flew fighter-bomber like missions at low altitude, too easy to hit.

The various schemes to use twins for strafing that both the Germans and the Soviets considered and abandoned seems to confirm your opinion. The Henschel Hs 129 tank buster might have been an exception, but it was designed for small size specifically. (The Junkers Ju 88 was considered for tank busting, but the idea was abandoned, so it looks like size really mattered.)

>An example there is attempts to use B-26's (WWII A-26's) in daylight glide bombing/strafing close support in Korea: judged too easy to hit.

That's more evidence for the effect of size

By the way, a guy working in terminal ballistics once explained to me that survivability is considered the result of two diffferent factors (which we also find in the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics in some places), "susceptibility"- the chance of being hit - and "vulnerabilty" - the chance of going down from a hit. I think for twins, it's pretty clear that increased susceptibility in the fighter bomber mission outweighs the decreased vulnerability, but I have not read much about the impact it makes when you are comparing two single-engined aircraft of different size.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[SoD Stitch]

Definitely P-47 for fighters; even when the induction system was shot up, it could still fly normally aspirated.

Il-2 was overrated; Hartmann scored most of his kills on Il-2's. He'd approach the Sturmovik from below & behind and take out the oil cooler; worked every time. I would go with the Henschel He 129, also.


B-17 for bomber; tough old bird. Would make it back to it's base in England with whole pieces of airplane missing.

Carrier-based: Probably F4F or F6; they didn't call Grumman the "Iron Works" for nothing.

[comiso90]

I wouldnt use Hartman as a benchmark for a typical pilot...
Just cause we was able to sneak in there and surgically remove the oil cooler does not mean most pilots could.

Two engines = more to break, more critical points ... and with one engine the mission is over anyway. The pilot may have a greater chance of surviving but the thread is about "taking down."

,

[Soren]

Il-2 was overrated; Hartmann scored most of his kills on Il-2's.

No by far the majority of his kills were fighters, and we're talking 85-90% here.

Hartmann shot down 15 IL-2's in total.

[JimM]

Another subjective question, entirely dependent on what theater we're talking about, and during what period in the war.

The Wildcat was amazingly tough for the period in which it served...every bit as resilient to a Zero as a P47 was to 109. An Oscar would be hard pressed to take down a Hellcat barring a lucky shot to the cockpit or control surfaces.

Probably the last thing you wanted to be in WWII was a Zeke trying to take down a B17.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Soren

No by far the majority of his kills were fighters, and we're talking 85-90% here.

Hartmann shot down 15 IL-2's in total.

Sorry, didn't check my figures; it's been a long time since I read The Blond Knight Of Germany.

[Civettone]

Did someone mention the Short Sunderland yet?

He 177B would have been excellent: so rigid it could dive bomb, well armored, 4 engines, plus excellent armament.

Kris

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by JimM

Another subjective question, entirely dependent on what theater we're talking about, and during what period in the war.

Probably the last thing you wanted to be in WWII was a Zeke trying to take down a B17.

It's an example of subjective. The Japanese Navy was impressed with the B-17, but Zeroes inflicted heavy losses on B-17's early in 1941-42 on many occasions. These weren't battles on the scale of ETO, smaller formations on both sides. And B-17's did often resist immediate destruction, so that Zero claims against them were more conservative than their other claims, sometimes even underclaims, they didn't see the crashes. But a lot of those planes didn't make it back or were not repairable under the prevailing conditions. On the other side of the coin B-17 claims against attacking Japanese fighters in 1941-42 were grossly overstated, apparently worse than ETO, which was pretty overstated but more understandable given the larger formations (in which more duplication of claims was natural).

The particular B-17's involved were, early on in the Philippines, mainly B-17D's (or C's converted to D's) which were somewhat easier to attack (for example approaching from directly behind) and up to mid 1942 mostly early B-17E's with the fairly useless remote controlled belly turret. Still, Zeroes were very far from helpless against B-17's.

Joe

[Hakenkreuz]

What about the flying porcupine(Short S.25 Sunderland Mk2.) Ask a Lufftwaffer pilot to shot one down !

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hakenkreuz

What about the flying porcupine(Short S.25 Sunderland Mk2.) Ask a Lufftwaffer pilot to shot one down !

They did!

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Civettone

He 177B would have been excellent: so rigid it could dive bomb, well armored, 4 engines, plus excellent armament.

Kris

Yep, it would be hard to shoot one down as it likely went up in smoke before you could get close by

[freebird]

What about the twin engine medium bombers? (B-25, Ju88, IL-4, Betty, Nell etc) Which was the toughest to shoot down?