Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[renrich]

On the subject of vulnerability of F6F versus F4U. F6F delivered 6503 tons of bombs in WW2 and lost 553 AC to triple A. The F4U delivered 15,621 tons of bombs in WW2 and lost 349 AC to triple A. So the F4U delivered almost 3 times as many bombs and had a little more than half as many losses. Which one would you rather fly on an air to ground mission?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

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

I would strongly suspect the B-26 Marauder

[freebird]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I would strongly suspect the B-26 Marauder

Was it not less manouverable than the B-25 or Ju88?

[Jank]

Renrich, let's stick to the statistics at hand as they are far more of an apples to apples comparison of the singular and limited issue of survivability between the Hellcat and Corsair under controlled circumstances. We have a huge data pool, same period, both from same carriers, both having suffered AA hits. (Prior to 1945 F4U's hardly operated from carriers so their losses are not comparable to those suffered solely in carrier operations. Also, as Joe B pointed out on another forum, there was more scope to nurse a damaged landbased plane back to base considering the greater risks of a carrier landing in a damaged plane. Further, as JoeB pointed out, the Hellcat did not fly along with the Corsair in Korea but the Skyraider did and the oil cooler vulnerability of the Corsair showed up prominently there too.

41% of carrier based F4U's actually hit by AA fire became losses versus 26% of carrier based F6F's that were actually hit by AA fire in 1945. (source "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics"). That's more than a 50% greater chance of becoming a loss under circumstances of actual AA fire hits. Moreover, you could argue that the Hellcat had a greater chance of getting shot to Hell to begin with because it was slower and thus an easier target.

The US Navy apparently thought it worthwhile to comment on the data and the proper conclusions to be drawn as they related to the Corsair and Hellcat with respect to survivability. From the report itself at page 58:

Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.

You will note that it was the United States Navy, as opposed to several individuals on the web regurgitating the same thing they heard someone else and each other say, that said that the Hellcat had a greater ability to survive damage. That assessment was not based on anecdotal accounts but from a huge amount of data collected according to objective criteria.

(I remember when you were more than willing to argue an unsubstantiated assertion that the USAAF had admitted that the Corsair could take more punishment than the Thunderbolt. Surely you aren't going to now argue with the US Navy's verifiable declaration concerning the Hellcat and Corsair.)

Moreover, the Navy declared that the Hellcat was superior in combat to the Corsair in the valid apples to apples comparison (see the data limited to carrier operations in 1945). Now the Corsair could smoke the Hellcat in just about every combat maneuver, climb, speed and roll. And yet still, the Hellcat was adjudged superior in combat. How can that be?

Apparently, chiefly because the Corsair had more than a 50% greater chance of becoming a catastrophic loss under circumstances where actual AA fire was suffered.

Again, the culprit appears to be the oil cooler. The other R-2800 powered fighters do not have these interesting tidbits inserted into the pilots manuals.

The Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the F4U-4 (October 1944 T.O. No. AN-01-45HB1) warned that there was only enough oil for a maximum of ten seconds of inverted flight. Also, where there was damage to an oil cooler with resulting loss of oil, neither the oil pressure gauge nor the oil temperature gauge would register the change in pressure or temperature until all of the oil was out of the system. (See Manual at page 10) Pilots were warned during combat to check the oil coolers and trailing edges of the wings often for damage that could prove catastrophic.

I have checked the pilots manuals for the P-47 and Hellcat and no such caveats or warnings are present. Nor have I ever heard of any noteworthy vulnerability of the oil cooling systems for either.

As JoeB has pointed out, the oil cooler vulnerability issue is further supported by reports from those who fought in Korea. I have been reading various references to the vulnerability of the oil coolers in Corsairs elsewhere on the web (as I am sure you have) as well.

[JoeB]

Besides general difference in carrier and land ops, another specific operational historical reason the overall bomb tonnage v loss comparison for F4U and F6F is invalid is this: Marine F4U units spent most of 1944 and part of 1945 as mainly ground attack planes pounding bypassed Japanese garrisons in Solomons and Central Pacific where the defenders couldn't even afford to fire a lot of AA; defending fighters were long gone with exception of an occasional few re-built from wreck(s). They largely just hunkered down.

Marine F4U sdns began to be deployed on carriers starting in January 1945 for two main reasons: to quickly boost fighter CV complements against the Kamikaze threat, and realization that the bombing of now very far bypassed garrisons was being overdone to the point of wasting resources. Then of course some USN F4U sdns also flew from carriers as 1945 went on. Only in that year could the two types could really be compared in the same missions v same opposition, especially v AA. There'd been a bit of side by side against serious fighter opposition earlier in the Solomons (land based F6F's and F4U's).

Joe

[Jank]

Brassey's Air Combat Reader

The author, Walter Boyne, mentions that with respect to operations in Korea, the oil cooler in the Corsair was vulnerable to even small arms fire.

"The airplanes would be hit by nothing more serious than a singe rifle bullet, and then their engines would seize when all the engine oil leaked from the oil cooler. They would then be forced to land behind enemy lines minutes after being hit. ... We were losing many F4U pilots and hoped they were being captured, not killed out of hand" (Page 174)

BTW - those "rifle bullets" that were bringing down Corsairs were 7.62 x 39 and not the 8 x 57 rifle rounds that the Germans used in WWII (for reference sake). The 7.62 x 39 has about 65% of the energy of the German rifle round used in WWII. In other words, Corsairs appear to have been brought down with little more than rocks thrown by third world savages. (OK ... that was an exaggeration but I thought it sounded funny)

To bring the point home though, the rifle rounds used by the Japanese in WWII, 7.7 x 58, were significantly more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 as well.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Jank

Brassey's Air Combat Reader

The author, Walter Boyne, mentions that with respect to operations in Korea, the oil cooler in the Corsair was vulnerable to even small arms fire.

"The airplanes would be hit by nothing more serious than a singe rifle bullet, and then their engines would seize when all the engine oil leaked from the oil cooler. They would then be forced to land behind enemy lines minutes after being hit. ... We were losing many F4U pilots and hoped they were being captured, not killed out of hand" (Page 174)

BTW - those "rifle bullets" that were bringing down Corsairs were 7.62 x 39 and not the 8 x 57 rifle rounds that the Germans used in WWII (for reference sake). The 7.62 x 39 has about 65% of the energy of the German rifle round used in WWII. In other words, Corsairs appear to have been brought down with little more than rocks thrown by third world savages. (OK ... that was an exaggeration but I thought it sounded funny)

To bring the point home though, the rifle rounds used by the Japanese in WWII, 7.7 x 58, were significantly more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 as well.

Okay, Jank, I like you; you have a sense of humour (number one in my book; a sense of humour loosely corelates to your intelligence level; i.e.: Robin Williams is a genius).

Anyway, not to nit-pick, but the German round was actually 7.92mm, not 8mm. In any case, your argument is valid.

[Jank]

Well not to nitpick back but the cartridge is in fact called the 8 x 57.

The disparity between what cartridges are called and what they actually measure is a very common phenomenon. For instance, a .270 Winchester is actually .277, a .303 British is actually .311, the .380 Auto is actually .355, the .44 Magnum is actually .429, the .38 Special is actually .357 etc.

[wilbur1]

i think the cessna with 20mm guns was the best but they dont count that as a plane do they?

[HoHun]

Hi Jank,

>We have a huge data pool, same period, both from same carriers, both having suffered AA hits. (Prior to 1945 F4U's hardly operated from carriers so their losses are not comparable to those suffered solely in carrier operations.

Hm, I'm getting confused here - could you please point me to the relevant table in the NASC? I have just found "Table 17 - Navy Fighters", and it lists just 121 combat sorties for 1945 with just 2 losses to A/A, which would be too small a sample to allow reliable conclusions ... ah, I see - you're probably using "Table 29. Anti-aircraft loss and damage"?

>Moreover, you could argue that the Hellcat had a greater chance of getting shot to Hell to begin with because it was slower and thus an easier target.

Surprisingly, there is hardly any difference. If you compare the 1945 data, you can see that 17.9% of the Hellcats attacking A/A-defending targets were hit, and 17.7% of the attacking F4Us. (I'd have expected the F4U to be better, too.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Jank

BTW - those "rifle bullets" that were bringing down Corsairs were 7.62 x 39 and not the 8 x 57 rifle rounds that the Germans used in WWII (for reference sake).
...the rifle rounds used by the Japanese in WWII, 7.7 x 58, were significantly more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 as well.

How about another nitpick , the 7.62x39 round, (fired by SKS, AK-47 etc. for those interested strictly in planes not rifles) was hardly if at all used by the Communists in Korea. The predominant rifles in mid-late war were Moisin-Nagant bolt action types, rifle or carbine various models, which fired the relatively powerful 7.62x54 round. Moreover that's what was fired by rifle caliber MG's at planes.

Various secondary sources have vaguely claimed, without footnote, that SKS's were used in Korea but I've never seen any mention of this in primary US sources on intel about the enemy, or more detailed Soviet accounts of their aid to the NK's and Chinese, nor any photo. If so, it was only in small trial quantities.

Actually when the Chinese first entered the Korean War in October 1950, most of their troops had non-Soviet weapons, often Japanese Type 99's (7.7mm), or Type 38's (6.5mm); or various Chinese Mausers in the German caliber. Some NK units also had Japanese rifles, but they were more uniformly equipped with Soviet weapons from the beginning than the Chinese were.

Not that it really makes all that much difference what particular rifle round hits a plane, if it hits in exactly the right place.

Joe

[renrich]

I see your point Jank. I was not aware of the reports and statistics you pointed out. I wonder why the Navy sometime in 1944 decided that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat as a ship board fighter and replaced the Hellcats with Corsairs as expeditously as possible. Do you know if the AU version of the Corsair addressed the issue of the oil cooler in Korea?

[Jank]

JoeBsaid, How about another nitpick , the 7.62x39 round, (fired by SKS, AK-47 etc. for those interested strictly in planes not rifles) was hardly if at all used by the Communists in Korea. The predominant rifles in mid-late war were Moisin-Nagant bolt action types, rifle or carbine various models, which fired the relatively powerful 7.62x54 round. Moreover that's what was fired by rifle caliber MG's at planes.

I didn't know that.

Renrich said, "Do you know if the AU version of the Corsair addressed the issue of the oil cooler in Korea?"

I think JoeB might know more about that. I think I read his post about that on another forum. There was another mention on another website about designing a different oil cooler set up as well.

Renrich said, I wonder why the Navy sometime in 1944 decided that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat as a ship board fighter and replaced the Hellcats with Corsairs as expeditously as possible.

Well, the Corsair was far superior in probably every performance category (maybe not turn radius - I don't know) and the ability to carry ordinance. Kamikaze attacks began in 1944. I would rather be protected by Corsairs than Hellcats if only because of the Corsair's ability to intercept further out due to its higher speed. I think that ultimately, the focus ends up being on which aircraft can deliver the best punch. (No one seemed to be that concerned about the Mustang's vulnerability over the radial.) I think the Hellcat didn't have any evolutionary potential either. Also, there may have been economic / production considerations.

Why are such decisions made? Who knows. You yourself have argued a number of times that the Corsair ought to have been introduced into the European Theatre. Why wasn't that done?

[renrich]

I know at least one reason the Corsair was not considered for use in the European theatre by the AAF and that was that no ship board AC in those days was considered capable of equalling the performance of purpose designed AC particularly as a fighter or pursuit as they were known then. If I recall correctly the Phantom II, what became the F4, was designed originally as a ship board AC and the Air Force was reluctant to admit that it could outperform it's pet fighters but finally gave in and adopted it. Another example might be the F14 and F15. The F14 with it's Phoenix system was considered for the job of an interceptor that the F15 was designed for and probably could have done all the missions the F15 ultimately performed at a great savings in cost but the AF wanted it's own AC. Rivalry between the services can be a good thing but it has probably cost our country a great deal of money. Another example of rivalry costing money was that the RAF was tasked after WW1 with control of the Fleet Air Arm. As I recall the RN during WW1 had some pretty potent fighters, one being the Sopwith Tripe, but with the RAF being in control and possibly not wanting the RN to rival them in any way and also believing that no ship board AC could equal a ground based one, the RN had to fight WW2 with a bunch of duds except for what they were able to procure from the US. Thanks be that the USN has always had control of the procurement of it's AC.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

Why are such decisions made? Who knows. You yourself have argued a number of times that the Corsair ought to have been introduced into the European Theatre. Why wasn't that done?

Jank - I suspect two reasons, maybe three.

first, political. USAAF then USAF did not 'buy' a USN airframe until the F4 pre Viet Nam, then the A7D. The USN has never bought a USAAF or USAF fighter even when mandated by Congress (i.e killed the F111B, refused the VFAX (F-16) after it won the flyoff with F-1.

During WWII, the USAAF or USN project manager that recommended the other's a/c in a competing line would be next studying clap incidence of Penguins in Antartica!

The USN didn't have a choice with B-25 or B-24 - they just didn't have that capability in the fleet or in USMC and they needed them

second, the F4U never made it to Wright Pat for a serious eval - therefore had no chance to display great performance which could have led to orders.

third, Vought didn't have the capacity to build more even if the orders came because of time to build factories and duplicate production lines.

Vought was small when the Corsair came into life as was Lockheed when the Xp-38 won its competition - neither were equipped in context of facilty, manufacturing engineers or design engineers to move either airframe from prototype to production version in short period of time.

Republic was well established as was NAA and Grumman and had financing, early orders to start production (either USA or Lend Lease), Bell and Curtis and Martin and Douglas also.

The above are opinions only..

Regards,

Bill