Best Pacific Fighter?

[syscom3]

Land based fighters were extremely important.

The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.

In the meantime, the Corsairs and P38's in the SW Pacific were in a daily battle with the IJA/IJN.

You can say that the Hellcat is what made the carriers invincable. But it was the Lightning and Corsair that destroyed the remaining "cream of the crop" Japanese pilots.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by <simon>

Hang on.... No Bearcat??
I thought the Bearcat would be a worthy contender
-Carrier operable
-Climbs like a bitch (best piston in WW2 in fact!)
-Carries damn good armament
-Friggin' manouverable!

Did the Bearcat fight in WW2?

No...

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Land based fighters were extremely important.

The F6F was essentially reserved for fleet use, so their extensive use was not untill the carriers began sustained operations after the summer of 1943.

In the meantime, the Corsairs and P38's in the SW Pacific were in a daily battle with the IJA/IJN.

You can say that the Hellcat is what made the carriers invincable. But it was the Lightning and Corsair that destroyed the remaining "cream of the crop" Japanese pilots.

Not unimportant, but less important. The South and Southwest Pacific campaigns were a series of advances that led to the re-conquest of Philippines. Beyond that, landbased fighter supported landings couldn't get to Japan without seizing territory in mainland China (with US forces, a huge undertaking consciously avoided). Carrier superiority was necessary to finish things off, (eg. Mariana's B-29 bases, Okinawa, invasion of Japan itself: carriers), basic geo-strategic fact of the war.

Less capable landbased fighters could still have worn down the Japanese in the Solomons and NG campaigns just at higher cost, but excellent fighters were a more critical commodity for the limited deck space of carriers.

Also the scale of F4U combat was considerably smaller than F6F. F4U sdns saw little action between early 1944 (when the Rabaul campaign ended) and early 1945 (when assigned to carriers in part because underutilized), the critical phase of the war, a year of pretty constant large scale F6F ops downing very large numbers of carrier and landbased Japanese a/c. F6F's also did some fighting from land bases in the Solomons, and F4U's only entered service there in early '43 a few months before carrier operations started up again in earnest in summer, and flew alongside F4F's, P-40's (and P-38's) in Solomons in that period: credit for gradually attriting the Japanese air arms pre-1944 is shared among a number of types. F4U perhaps better plane than the F6F, but no way as important in the Pacific War, as it played out.

In scale of operation it's a little closer between P-38 and F6F but same issue, F6F campaigns were the ones which absolutely had to happen and where it was more important for the fighters to be superior plane for plane, whereas it can be debated whether the P-38's main campaign, leapfrogging up the New Guinea and eastern DEI to the Philippines, was even necessary to winning the war. However within that campaign the long range of the P-38 was a critical advantage: it set the distance by which each amphibious operation could advance from the previous under landbased air cover.

Looking at the big picture level of the war, I can't see a non-carrier fighter being named most important in the Pacific War. If another category was introduced for most important landbased fighter, then it would be P-38, not the F4U.

Joe

[renrich]

Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills, about 400 more than the P38. One could make the case that a study of Hellcat and Corsair kills proves the superiority of the Corsair because the Corsair was engaged in the Solomons when the skill and training level of the IJN pilots was still relatively high and because the Corsair was shooting down fighters rather than the easier to vanquish bombers. Actually, comparing operational losses of the two AC somewhat belies the reputation of the Corsair as an "ensign eliminator."

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by renrich

Joe, the number of combat sorties flown by Hellcats and Corsairs was almost the same-66530 to 64051. The Hellcat delivered 6503 tons of bombs, the Corsair 15621 tons. The Corsair began to replace the Hellcat on carriers because the Navy decided that in all respects it was a superior fighter. That judgment was made public on May 16,1944. The F6F had a better kill/loss ratio. The ratio of fighters shot down by F6F over bombers was a little over 2-1 with a total of 5257. The ratio of F4U fighter to bombers was about 4-1 with a total of 2155 kills,

Again I'm not talking 'superior' I'm talking important. A lot of F4U sorties were
'hold down' operations against bypassed garrisons in 1944 with little or no air opposition, that's why the sortie and bomb numbers are high but the kill claim numbers much lower. But 1944 is when Japanese naval and air power was really smashed, and the F6F had more to do with that than any other fighter. It's the point at which carrier groups starting taking on large land based air contingents and defeating them, opening the path to directly attacking Japan. Marine F4U sdns only deployed on carriers from January 1945, and the first USN sdn (beside F4U-2 night fighters) that February. The fast carrier groups remained mainly F6F through the end of the war. So the F4U might have been the plane in that critical role, but it wasn't.

Joe

[renrich]

Joe, I see your points. Perhaps when judging the most important Pacific fighter, we should consider the Wildcat. It was the fighter which was there in the beginning. It was there at Coral Sea, when the IJN had it's back broken at Midway and in the Solomons until spring of 1943. One could almost say that the Hellcats and Corsairs just did the mopping up.

[drgondog]

I agree the distinction must (or should) be made regarding 'Best' versus 'Most Important'

Era's are also interesting.. for example the F4F did a good job against the Zero through the Battle of Santa Cruz, but the F6F dominated Pacific Fleet Ops from late 1943 to the end of the war. If you have a debate about 1941-1942 the 'best' and 'most important' have to consider the Zero. For 1943 it becomes more murky as the F4F was still in prime service, holding it's own but not dominating the Zero but the Corsair and Lightning were land bound while the USN was systematically enabling 'toe holds for them' in the SW Pacific. But clearly the F4F could not approach any of the above from a pure perfromance POV.

I also agree with JoeB how important Carrier Ops were throughout the war in projecting 'tactical and strategic footprint.

From a raw performance (best) to most important, one ETO comparison could be Ta 152 to Mustang. From my personal perspective the Ki 84, P-38J and F4U-4 were all superior to the F6F - but none as 'important' to PTO airpower as the F6F.

I still view the F6F and P-51 as the most important US fighters in their respective theatres from late 1943 to EOW.

[renrich]

Bill, those are all good points and for the time mentioned, I agree.

[syscom3]

But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944.

Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.

And it was the USMC and AAF units that so depleted the IJN and IJA, that the USN was able to steamroller through the Marshall islands.

The F4F and P40 were important aircraft, but far being the best.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

But I will keep reminding you ...... the carriers did not engage in any systematic operations untill 1944.

Throughout 1943, the only two fighters that did bring the fight to the Japanese and were clearly superior to them was the P38 and F4U.

And it was the USMC and AAF units that so depleted the IJN and IJA, that the USN was able to steamroller through the Marshall islands.

The F4F and P40 were important aircraft, but far being the best.

So, in your opinion carriers and carrier air were insignificant until 1944? Interesting thought.

That would be dismissing the contribution Halsey/USN carrier air made to the entire Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands campaigns, to neutralize Rabaul and Truk, suppress Japanese reinforcements and actually provide the bases for the P-38s and F4U's (and B-24/25/17/29's).

That would be dismissing the fact that Carrier Air brought the F4U's to location and positioned the USMC Air from Guadalcanal to Vella Lavella in 1942-1943.

That would be dismissing the contributions to Coral Sea, Bismark Sea and Midway air battles.

In short, carrier operations were a lot more that air battles - and they engaged in plenty of those. The purpose of Fighter Aviation was air superiority and the USN achieved that at Midway from a Fleet Operations POV, and that enabled the US to cohesively island hop, bypass strongholds, put up land based ops, supply them, and take the next series via Carrier Task Force.

No contribution from USAAF through 1944 was possible w/o carrier airpower, except for places like Darwin in Australia - everything from New Guinea to Iwo required carrier air to enable the movement and supply of everything the USAAF required to fight.

I'm probably as big a USAAF bigot as there is but even I have a hard time 'dismissing' Brown Shoe contributions in 1942 and 1943.

[syscom3]

I am speaking of the time period between the end of Guadalcanal and the beginning of the invasion of the Gilberts.

The carriers did not engage in any systematic day to day operations untill late 1943.

Land based fighters are what wiped out the best of the IJN, and in this case, it was the P38 and F4U. If you have a case for the F4F as being the ebst, lets hear it.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I am speaking of the time period between the end of Guadalcanal and the beginning of the invasion of the Gilberts.

The carriers did not engage in any systematic day to day operations untill late 1943.

Land based fighters are what wiped out the best of the IJN, and in this case, it was the P38 and F4U. If you have a case for the F4F as being the ebst, lets hear it.

Syscom - why are you hung up on 'systematic' operations? So what? and what does that mean to you? How many IJN fighters did the P-38 or F4U shoot down over Rabaul or Gilberts or Truk or Santa Cruz or Coral Sea or Midway? Or more importantly, Guadalcanal.

Where do you want to make a case that the F4F wasn't the most important sea based and land based fighter in 1942?

Nobody is arguing that land based airpower was a major contributor to the decline of IJN - but the USN was the point of the spear except for Darwin and Port Moresby in 1942... and the last time I checked the USMC was still part of USN.

If you have read any of my posts you might recall that I am ambivalent about F4U vs P-38 as 'best', and lean toward the F4U. Why do you think I regard the F4F as even a consideration?

I am glad the F4F was in-theatre but I don't rank them as a candidate for either Best or Most Important...at least not after mid 1943, nor do I rank the F4U or P-38 or P-40 in the category of Most Important in 1942 in the ultimate defeat of the IJN airpower.

For that period the F4F and P-40 are the only real US candidates and the F4F was more important at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Rabaul, Truk and Gilbert Islands than the P-38 and F4U... the more I think about it, the P-40 was probably more important through early 1943 out of Port Moresby than the P-38...at least through mid to late 1943.

IIRC the 475th, 8th, 18th, 35th and the 49th were the top USAAF PTO groups.

The 49th wasn't fully converted from P-40's until mid 1944. The 475th wasn't in combat w/38 until May 1943 and not out of New Guinea Until Oct, 1944 when it moved to to Phillipines.

The 8th didn't convert to P-38s until June 1943. the 18th didn't convert to P-38s (from P-40's) until after they moved from Guadalcanal in mid 1943, and the 35th had only one squadron of 38's in nov 1942 (two P-40) but all three converted to P-47s in Nov 1943, then 51s in late 1944.

The IJN foes based in New Guinea were important at both Lae and Salamaua (?) and defending against Rabaul strikes, in the New Guinea campaigns but the P-38 was far less a factor than the P-40 until July/Sept 1943 timeframe.

When do you stipulate the IJN airpower was defeated? Before or after mid 1943?

The primary source for TO&E is Olynyk's Stars and Bars

So how important was P-38 to destruction of IJN in 1942-1943? Close to zero relative to P-40 until mid to late 1943 and early 1944.

[Soren]

Good posts Bill.

But when talking about raw performance lets not forget the Me-262A-1a, which left everything else in the dust in that department. Not letting it operate as an airsuperiority fighter from the beginning as intended was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes in the war. Its success rate when operated as intended was excellent, achieving a kill/loss ratio of ~10/1 in the air if not more.

Still at that point it couldn't have won the war for Germany, they were simply too few to late, but it could've drawn out the war to a point where the Allied invasion progess would've stalled completely and negotiations were a possibility. However for there to be any chance of repulsing the Western Allies back out of mainland Europe the Germans would've needed not only the Me262 in the fighter role from the start of their deployment, but they'd need the Jumo 004D engine, as that would allow them to hunt down the Allied bombers over British soil. Now fuel would've always been a problem, but less so had the Allies been robbed of their ability to strike the German fuel industry from early 44 and onwards.

PS: Sorry for the OT stuff, back on topic;

IMO the best fighters in the PTO were the F4U Corsair and Ki-84 Hayate. Too bad for the Japanese that nearly only rookies were flying the Ki-84's. Still the Ki-84 did prove the most successful Japanese fighter in the late war years, along with the N1K2-J.

[trackend]

I think you over estimate what the 262 could do Soren there is not a hope in hell that the allies would have negotiated on the basses of heavy air losses . Can,t stop troops with a fighter even if it is the 262 the logistics of Germany had been destroyed to all intense and purposes by the time the 262 was about.
You needed ground, sea and air power dominance to win WW2 and Germany had lost all three, even if the 262 had regained the air upper hand it would have not been enough to push the allies into negotiating terms.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Good posts Bill.

But when talking about raw performance lets not forget the Me-262A-1a, which left everything else in the dust in that department. Not letting it operate as an airsuperiority fighter from the beginning as intended was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes in the war. Its success rate when operated as intended was excellent, achieving a kill/loss ratio of ~10/1 in the air if not more.

Soren - I'm on record as saying the Me 262 was the Best, and Ta 152 as Best Piston - independent of contribution - Fighters in WWII

I have no idea what the theoretical score/loss rate was for the 262 simply because German records are basically missing from a claim/review/award standpoint from late 1944 forward. Whether 10:, 5:1 or 20:1, it still was the best



PS: Sorry for the OT stuff, back on topic;

IMO the best fighters in the PTO were the F4U Corsair and Ki-84 Hayate. Too bad for the Japanese that nearly only rookies were flying the Ki-84's. Still the Ki-84 did prove the most successful Japanese fighter in the late war years, along with the N1K2-J.

I tend to agree that also. Nobody wanted to dogfight a Ki 84 in the hands of a good pilot.. The reason I favor the F4U over the 38 is simply it was the best Air/land air superiority fighter of the war and that was a requisite in the PTO...
and the same applies when compared to the Ki 84 and the Shiden.

If someone gives me just one choice to fight the entire war as escort fighter, carrier fighter, night fighter, air superiority - if it is only one choice for all theatres and opponents, then for me the F4U-1 to start and F4U-5 to finish.