Best Pacific Fighter II

[renrich]

Debating, discussing best PTO or ETO fighter is fun, educational and stimulating. Having said that however it is pretty much futile to reach a definitive conclusion that is not just an opinion. The more you study WW2 fighters, the more you begin to understand this. To begin with, so much depends on the pilot. If one takes as gospel that the premier recip fighters in WW2 were the BF109, FW190, Spitfire, Tempest, P51, P47, P38, F6F, F4U and perhaps KI84 and the different variations of those, and you put a Erich Hartman, Saburo Sakai, Johnny Johnson, Dick Bong or Joe Foss, etc. in any of them, being familiar with that type, and another of the premiers being piloted by an average pilot, the chances are the average pilot is going to get waxed. EXCEPT and this is a big EXCEPT. If the Erich Hartman is in the latest BF109 and the average guy is in a P51D and the fight is 600 miles away from base, Hartman is not going to win because he has probably already run out of fuel and ditched. If the two pilots are roughly equal and the fight is between a F4U1D and a P47D and is at 35000 feet, the P47 has an edge with it's turbo charged engine but if the fight is down in the weeds, the F4U has the edge. If the fight is between a P51B and an FW190, optimised for shooting down bombers with a bunch of heavy cannon and tubes for rockets, all things equal the FW is at a severe disadvantage. The early P38s did poorly in the ETO, partly because in the cold air over Europe up high they got into compressibility problems in a dive. They did better in the PTO at lower altitudes with warmer air. Speed is good but a 15 or 20 mph edge on paper does not mean much because most Vmaxs are quoted at optimal altitudes so where is the fight taking place and besides that some aircraft were harder to keep tuned and rigged for max performance so lots of time the planes could not do what the factory said it could do. What it boils down to is that all the premier fighters were pretty good at the jobs they were supposed to do if flown well. Even so, if I am a new, well trained USN pilot with little combat experience flying along in my brand new F4U4, all shiny and polished and I see Saburo Sakai tootling along in a Zeke, in spite of my almost 100 MPH speed advantage, if I am not careful I could find myself in a heap of trouble.

[Amsel]

The Marines and soldiers on the ground remember the F4U as "the sweetheart of Okinawa". It could carry a very heavy payload, was aerodynamically "clean" with its spot welding and flush wheel wells, and sported a supercharged P&W. It was fast as hell with the F4U-4 being clocked at 446 mph at 26,200 ft. It was also a capable nightfighter and carrier capable. Being so dynamic really put it at the top of the list for the PTO and if assigned to the ETO I have no doubt that it would be up with the P-51D in ratings.

[JoeB]

I'd reiterate what I said in a previous version of this poll. The F6F was the most *important* Allied fighter in the Pacific. Sea control was the key to moving the war rapidly toward Japan; carriers were the key to broad area sea control; the F6F was the key to carrier survivability close to large concentrations of Japanese land based fighters. And the F6F was the definitely superior carrier plane operationally (ie. in terms of ease of landing, even after the F4U's worst characteristics were corrected, it always had a substantially higher accident rate).

'Best' always tends to focus on the last version of each plane, so for example F4U-4, but that was not an important plane in WWII, nor was the P-38L. The war was virtually won before either entered combat. F4U-1 v F6F-3 and -5 is the most relevant WWII comparison and the F4U-1 was somewhat superior to the F6F-3 but had no substantial advantage over the -5. Official speed stats were somewhat different, but the actual trial of both v A6M5 showed the best speeds of F4U-1D and F6F-5 as almost the same. And Navy stats for both in combat in 1944-45 (which even includes a few F4U-4 units) showed claimed kill ratio v Japanese fighter types also to be almost the same (slightly higher for F6F). As mentioned, in that period 'fighter' was sometimes kamikaze, and those stats are claims so can't be taken literally as number of aircraft really shot down, but the comparison of F4U to F6F is apples to apples for that period: v. the same opposition they achieved almost exactly the same air combat results, but the F6F had a notably lower attrition rate to accidents and AA fire (again same period, comparing carrier operations v. same kind of AA opposition).

Moreover I've seen several Japanese statements saying the F6F was their most formidable fighter opponent, and while the F4U and P-38 have been mentioned as also important types turning the air combat tide against them, I know of no statement singling out any fighter but the F6F. This was partly a function of the situations in which the F6F was encountered. For example one such statement is in a USSBS interview about US fighter ops over Japan, favorably comparing the F6F to the P-51; saying the F6F units were more persistent and aggressive therefore more dangerous; but that would have been in part because of P-51 fuel worries operating over Japan from Iwo Jima v F6F's operating from carriers much closer. Also the Japanese opinion of USN/USMC fighters v USAAF generally mirrored the US opinion of Japanese fighter arms: they generally believed the naval service fighter units were superior. But again I'm going for most important, not pure technical superiority of the latest version of each to see any action at all.

Joe

[renrich]

How does one evaluate the period of time from February, 1943 to almost September 1943, when the Hellcat was not even present in combat anywhere and the landbased Corsair, still competing against some good IJN pilots helped the Allies to attain air supremacy in the Southwest Pacific? It was not the F4U4 that changed the mind of the Navy about carrier borne Corsairs. On May 16, 1944, " After a series of comparative fight tests a Navy Evaluation Board concludes the F4U1D is the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier aircraft. It is recommended that carrier fighter and fighter-bomber units be converted to the F4U type." Somehow the supposed vulnerability to ground fire of the F4U must have been outweighed by other qualities. The Hellcat shot down a little more than twice as many enemy AC than the Corsair. The Corsair dropped a lot more than twice as much tonnage of bombs than the Hellcat. The Corsair operated off of carriers when the Kamikaze risk was at it's greatest. The F4U4 could do 380 mph at sea level, where as the F6F5 could barely get to 335 mph at SL. Perhaps it's performance edge over the Hellcat played a major role then.

[comiso90]

if were talking "Best Fighter" in knife range, I'd have to give it to the KI-84..

superb aircraft

Best all around would be the Corsair or Hellcat.

if i'm on a long=range assassination mission.... the P-38

.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by renrich

1. How does one evaluate the period of time from February, 1943 to almost September 1943, when the Hellcat was not even present in combat anywhere and the landbased Corsair, still competing against some good IJN pilots helped the Allies to attain air supremacy in the Southwest Pacific?

2. It was not the F4U4 that changed the mind of the Navy about carrier borne Corsairs. On May 16, 1944, " After a series of comparative fight tests a Navy Evaluation Board concludes the F4U1D is the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier aircraft. It is recommended that carrier fighter and fighter-bomber units be converted to the F4U type." Somehow the supposed vulnerability to ground fire of the F4U must have been outweighed by other qualities.

3. The Hellcat shot down a little more than twice as many enemy AC than the Corsair. The Corsair dropped a lot more than twice as much tonnage of bombs than the Hellcat. The Corsair operated off of carriers when the Kamikaze risk was at it's greatest.

4. The F4U4 could do 380 mph at sea level, where as the F6F5 could barely get to 335 mph at SL. Perhaps it's performance edge over the Hellcat played a major role then.

1. Unlike other pairs of a/c we might compare the F4U and F6F *were* operated side by side in the same conditions v the same opponents. Those apples/apples cases are therefore IMO what logic says we should focus on, rather than trying to speculate about the differences in cases where they weren't operated side by side, as we'd be forced to do for types that never did operate side by side.

When land based USN F6F units operated in the Solomons from late August '43, alongside USMC (and later USN) land based F4U units, there was no obvious difference in air combat results. Again when the two types operated side by side on a larger scale in 1945, we have a large statistical sample showing no difference in combat results (claimed kill ratio's essentially identical in 100's of combats in that period). There is no evidence the F4U-1 was more effective than F6F-3 or -5 v Japanese fighters. The Japanese didn't think so either. On a more anecdotal level, Sakaida's "Genda's Blade" documents a number of F4U and F6F v Shiden-Kai combats in 1945 from both sides and there's again no obvious difference in results.

2. The AA vulnerability difference wasn't proven until 1945, when there was a large sample of F6F and F4U strike missions from the same bases (carriers) against the same opposition (sdns on same ships or different ships in same TF's operating against the same AA). The F4U loss rate was substantially higher. NASC, which makes a point of noting this AA vulnerability difference, wasn't put together until after the war. Also it wasn't till those 1945 ops that it was proven the F4U could not match the F6F's carrier accident rate, earlier it might have been hoped that carrier suitability improvements to the F4U would eliminate that gap. Considering all evidence including after May 1944, the F4U-1 was not a superior all around carrier fighter to the F6F-3/5, especially the -5, by any actual evidence of combat results. But by 1945, the comparison had shifted to F4U-4 v F6F-5 where there *was* a significant performance difference, so it was moot looking forward to postwar, but here we're talking about best or more important fighter *in* the war, in PTO.

3. Again in side by side operations from carriers in 1945, the average ordnance per sortie of F4U and F6F on strike missions was almost the same. Even more than AA loss statistics, ordnance stats were skewed by type of base: it was generally easier to lift a given load from an airfield than a carrier, so only side by side operations provide a valid comparison, and didn't happen for a large number of strike missions until carrier ops in 1945.

4. The F4U-4 had a significant advantage in performance over any F6F model which reached production. But the F4U-1 was the main example of PTO (WWII) Corsair, had definite areas of practical inferiority to the F6F (loss rates to AA and accidents) as carrier fighter, and carrier fighters had a more important impact strategically on the Pacific War than land based ones. Whereas, the F4U-1 had no demonstrated superiority in fighter combat results when flying against the same opponents, and one might even doubt its practical advantage as interceptor over the F6F-5: its best speed was apparently only slightly higher in practice (4mph in dual trial v A6M5).

Joe

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Butters

...The primacy of carrier operations in the PTO rules out land-based AC like the P-38 ....

What gave you that idea? Allied land based forces (army and naval) accounted for a majority of the missions. Carriers are "raiders" and don't have staying capacity. Land based forces can fly continuously whenever the weather cooperates and they aren't tethered to the fleet train like the carriers are.

Go look at my "this day in the PTO 65 years ago" thread and look at the land based missions flown every day, as opposed to the once in awhile carrier missions.

I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't get their deserved recognition, but lets not give them credit for what they don't deserve.

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

What gave you that idea? Allied land based forces accounted for a majority of the missions. Carriers are "raiders" and dont have staying capacity. Land based forces can fly whenever the weather cooperates and arent tethered to the fleet train.

Go look at my "this day in the PTO 65 years ago" thread and look at the land based missions flown every day, as opposed to the once in awhile carrier missions.

I'm not suggesting that the carriers get their deserved recognition, but lets not give them credit for what they dont deserve.

The Cactus Air Force is just one example.

[renrich]

JB, do you have any information about the proportion of Hellcats in the Pacific fleet serving on CVEs versus Corsairs serving on CVEs when they were both in the fleet. I believe a good many of the USMC squadrons were on CVEs and that might skew operational losses. The Hellcats did not get into land based combat until the very end of August, 1943. I would suggest that the quality of Japanese pilot had begun to seriously erode compared to early in !943.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

JB, do you have any information about the proportion of Hellcats in the Pacific fleet serving on CVEs versus Corsairs serving on CVEs when they were both in the fleet. I believe a good many of the USMC squadrons were on CVEs and that might skew operational losses. The Hellcats did not get into land based combat until the very end of August, 1943. I would suggest that the quality of Japanese pilot had begun to seriously erode compared to early in !943.

It was about Jan 1944 that the erosion had run its course. The last of the quality naval forces in Rabaul had been used up around then.

Most of the losses were from Corsairs and P38's.

[Butters]

[QUOTE=syscom3;515280]What gave you that idea?

What gave me this idea is the inarguable fact that a high-performance carrier-capable fighter was absolutely essential to the prosecution of the Pacific War. The F6F and F4U could operate from both land bases and carriers. The USAAF planes could not. At least in their war-time configuration.

The Allies could have defeated the Japanese with an all F4U/F6F fighter force. That they could have done so with only land-based fighters is arguable at best. What is not arguable is that it would have been much more difficult.

JL

[syscom3]

[QUOTE=Butters;515319]

Originally Posted by syscom3

What gave you that idea?

What gave me this idea is the inarguable fact that a high-performance carrier-capable fighter was absolutely essential to the prosecution of the Pacific War. The F6F and F4U could operate from land bases and carriers. The USAAF planes could not. At least in their war-time configuration.

The Allies could have defeated the Japanese with an all F4U/F6F fighter force. That they could have done so with only land-based fighters is arguable at best. What is not arguable is that it would have been much more difficult.

JL

The AAF, the ANZAC AF and the Cactus AF (and later the Marine forces in the Central Solomons) were slugging it out with the Japanese for nearly two years before the first large carrier task forces made their forays into Central Pacific on a "sort" of regular basis. The P38's, P40's, F4F's and Corsairs were the ones who shattered the back of the quality Japanese air crews during that time.

I know of only two or so carrier attacks on the main Japanese bases in NG and Rabaul in that time frame. And if it wasnt for the attrition done to the Japanese airmen during that time, the US carriers would have faced far more skilled air attacks with subsequent damage.

The P38 was far superior to the F6F in nearly every single category. Only the F4U is its equal.

You might say that the Hellcat showed up late for the fight, had a good run against poorly trained Japanese pilots and then stole the glory from the real allied airmen who did the hard work against far better trained pilots.

[vikingBerserker]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The AAF, the ANZAC AF and the Cactus AF (and later the Marine forces in the Central Solomons) were slugging it out with the Japanese for nearly two years before the first large carrier task forces made their forays into Central Pacific on a "sort" of regular basis. The P38's, P40's, F4F's and Corsairs were the ones who shattered the back of the quality Japanese air crews during that time.

How many kills did the P-38 & P-40's have in the PTO?

Originally Posted by syscom3

You might say that the Hellcat showed up late for the fight, had a good run against poorly trained Japanese pilots and then stole the glory from the real allied airmen who did the hard work against far better trained pilots.

You would have to say the same thing about the F4U as 50% of their kills occured in 1945

[Catch22]

No you wouldn't because 50% of their kills came before that, in some of the toughest parts of the war. I don't have figures on the Hellcat, but when were the majority of their kills scored? I'm guess mid to late 44 - 45.

[vikingBerserker]

Originally Posted by Catch22

No you wouldn't because 50% of their kills came before that, in some of the toughest parts of the war. I don't have figures on the Hellcat, but when were the majority of their kills scored? I'm guess mid to late 44 - 45.

1943 F6F shot down (314) less planes then the F4U
1944 F6F shot down 2,484 more planes then the F4U
1944 F6F shot down 788 more planes then the F4U