Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[CobberKane]

They trained the same way the Luftwaffe trained, Parsifal. "During the years leading up to the attack upon Pearl Harbor, some lessons for combat training were learned by the Japanese during the conflicts in Manchuria and China in 1931 and 1937, but the study of the German Air Force made by Yamashita, then Inspector General of Aviation, in 1940-41, undoubtedly formed the basis for much of the modern training program." Ibid., p. 54.

PS: The Luftwaffe program was shaken for much the same reasons, too, and at around the same time.

Sorry Oldskeptic, I just can't help myself. VB, there seems to be a guarded assertion going on that the Hellcats record in the ETO is applicable to comparing it to the contemporary Spitfire as an air to air weapon? Or not, if I'm reading something between the lines that isn't there. Are you concluding that the quality of Japanese fighter pilots from, say, late 1943 (when the Hellcat commenced it's heroics) was comparable to the Luftwaffe? If so, would you nominate some other strategical or tactical factor that explains the Hellcats much better kill loss ratio, or alternatively something about the Hellcat itself compared to the Spit?

 

[OldSkeptic]

Sorry Oldskeptic, I just can't help myself. VB, there seems to be a guarded assertion going on that the Hellcats record in the ETO is applicable to comparing it to the contemporary Spitfire as an air to air weapon? Or not, if I'm reading something between the lines that isn't there. Are you concluding that the quality of Japanese fighter pilots from, say, late 1943 (when the Hellcat commenced it's heroics) was comparable to the Luftwaffe? If so, would you nominate some other strategical or tactical factor that explains the Hellcats much better kill loss ratio, or alternatively something about the Hellcat itself compared to the Spit?

Even more so that the Germans the Japanese banked on a quick war, without anything like the manufacturing, logistic and training infrastructure need for a war of attrition.

At the beginning there is little doubt that German and Japanese pilots were way ahead on skills and tactics than Allied ones.
In both cases (less so for the Germans) when they were gone, they were gone. As the training infrastructure was insufficient to replace the losses.

The very nature of carrier operations, the geography of the Pacific and the poor pilot protection of their planes meant that they suffered far greater and faster losses of their original skilled core than the Germans did.

So it didn't take long before their collective skill level deteriorated. Meanwhile the US was building its skills, with far greater training systems and of course far more of their experienced pilots surviving (creating a training and leadership core). By late 43, early 44, the US had a superior (in many, though not all, ways) plane in the Hellcat, with superior trained new pilots. Plus a hard core of surviving ones who, by the laws of combat evolution, had learned to fly and fight effectively with good tactics and skill, forming a hard core of the senior operational officers. That's a fatal combination.

The Japanese threw away their best very quickly, then when it was impossible for them to replace them they retained the same tactics they had used with their experienced pilots*. Those could pull them off, but their later brethren couldn't. If they had changed tactics, accepting their lower skill levels, they could have made more of an impact. Still lost of course, but maybe not quite so disastrously (for them that is).

But they were far too brave. Brains beats bravery every day. There is a point, which the Japanese went way past, where bravery becomes counter productive.

Which is why the Wehrmacht was so so dangerous, they were brave and brainy.... Even at the end, they were still better than us.

*They made the same mistake with their soldiers too.

 

[VBF-13]

Sorry Oldskeptic, I just can't help myself. VB, there seems to be a guarded assertion going on that the Hellcats record in the ETO is applicable to comparing it to the contemporary Spitfire as an air to air weapon? Or not, if I'm reading something between the lines that isn't there. Are you concluding that the quality of Japanese fighter pilots from, say, late 1943 (when the Hellcat commenced it's heroics) was comparable to the Luftwaffe? If so, would you nominate some other strategical or tactical factor that explains the Hellcats much better kill loss ratio, or alternatively something about the Hellcat itself compared to the Spit?

Cobber, I told you I wasn't concluded on the issue, and that I don't have anything specific in my files on it. You're categorically-concluded, right? Why don't you get up there and hit? Let's see what you got.

 

[zjtins]

Do you have anything to support your belief?

Moderator: how do I answer this one when all I get are questions with no supporting information themselves.

 

[fastmongrel]

I am not a moderator but all I can say is if you keep shooting off non sequiturs dont be surprised if they shoot straight Back At You

 

[Glider]

If it helps all I was trying to do was to find out if there was anything behind your view. If its only a view with nothing to support it then there is no point trying to debate it with you, as you can always just retreat to your view and ignore any evidence. If you have facts to support your view then we have something to debate with.

Example: If I was to say that its my view that the world is flat then you can bury me with facts and evidence but I only have my view so the facts mean nothing. If I say I believe the world is flat beacuse of A B and C. Then you can debate it by proving that A B and C is a load of bull.

As you didn't supply anything to support your view then as far as I am concerned your statement of your view is closed and not worth the effort.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Moderator: how do I answer this one when all I get are questions with no supporting information themselves.

If it helps all I was trying to do was to find out if there was anything behind your view. If its only a view with nothing to support it then there is no point trying to debate it with you, as you can always just retreat to your view and ignore any evidence. If you have facts to support your view then we have something to debate with.

Example: If I was to say that its my view that the world is flat then you can bury me with facts and evidence but I only have my view so the facts mean nothing. If I say I believe the world is flat beacuse of A B and C. Then you can debate it by proving that A B and C is a load of bull.

As you didn't supply anything to support your view then as far as I am concerned your statement of your view is closed and not worth the effort.

The man said it perfectly - now stop being a friggin twit and either participate accordingly or go find another sand box to play in! In the mean time may I suggest you reading this thread;

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/few-ground-rules-new-folks-7159.html

 

[zjtins]

Do you have anything to support your belief?
You got anything to refute that?

This is what started it all. I was asked again to provide yet more information YET the requester failed to provide anything to show it was not true. I actually have the link but wanted to see if the question has any merit and to date it has not been supported. I read the rules and have not broken any in this chain of discussion. I merely wanted an accuser to provide information contrary to what is established. I thought that was the purpose of any forum.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I merely wanted an accuser to provide information contrary to what is established.

So with that said (and maybe in the spirit of humoring "stupid") I'll post your original comment...

So from Feb 1944 to summer (D DAY from other sources) I do not believe the P51 laid waste to all of the Luftwaffe in the west. The P-38 and P-47 had more experienced pilots (in general) and were more numerous till around Aug-Oct 1944. That means (to me) the majority of the fighter aircraft between Feb 1944 - Jun 1944 were not from P51's. If you have data to the contrary please present it.

So now I'll pose this to you - what information data, reference material, and documents do YOU have to support this??????

 

[Njaco]

I didn't know a QUESTION had to have supporting evidence. Why ask a question if you already have the information?

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber, I told you I wasn't concluded on the issue, and that I don't have anything specific in my files on it. You're categorically-concluded, right? Why don't you get up there and hit? Let's see what you got.

If you mean I'm sure the Hellcat would have found things tougher over Europe, I guess I'm as sure as I can be, for the previously mentioned reasons. That said, I don't think it would have been embarrassed, either. Comparing the Hellcat to contemporary Spitfires, there were still plenty of Vs doing good low altitude work in 1944 - that's a role I could see the hellcat doing as well, or maybe better. And while it's been covered in other threads Still really don't get why the Hellcat and Corsair didn't replace the Seafire in the MTO unless, as was suggested, the reasons were economic and political rather than military

 

[zjtins]

So with that said (and maybe in the spirit of humoring "stupid") I'll post your original comment...

So from Feb 1944 to summer (D DAY from other sources) I do not believe the P51 laid waste to all of the Luftwaffe in the west. The P-38 and P-47 had more experienced pilots (in general) and were more numerous till around Aug-Oct 1944. That means (to me) the majority of the fighter aircraft between Feb 1944 - Jun 1944 were not from P51's. If you have data to the contrary please present it.
So now I'll pose this to you - what information data, reference material, and documents do YOU have to support this??????

Thank you at least it was not a prove it but a pointed response. I am not going to respond to 'prove it' as so far this simply leads to more 'prove it' regardless amount or type or information and that is not a discussion

I will supply it give me a bit, I did not save the link. But I was able to find a graph of fighter wings in Europe by aircraft type and month of deployment/change. After I find it I will also modify it change it to show percent of cumulative count so over time we can see how the change over the P-51's occurred.

 

[VBF-13]

If you mean I'm sure the Hellcat would have found things tougher over Europe, I guess I'm as sure as I can be, for the previously mentioned reasons. That said, I don't think it would have been embarrassed, either. Comparing the Hellcat to contemporary Spitfires, there were still plenty of Vs doing good low altitude work in 1944 - that's a role I could see the hellcat doing as well, or maybe better. And while it's been covered in other threads Still really don't get why the Hellcat and Corsair didn't replace the Seafire in the MTO unless, as was suggested, the reasons were economic and political rather than military

Cobber, the ETO isn't really one of my strengths. That is to say, on this issue, I'd be going more on intuition than knowledge. That means, I'm flying on fumes. That means, I can't get into this dogfight. That means, I'd need to gas up on knowledge, first.

In a manner of speaking...

 

[zjtins]

US 8th Air Force Aces, Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter pilots in WW2

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

Here looks like P-51 became 50% of around D-day, that's when the German's were down to 400 fighters on that front.

And another quote from the one of the websites

All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944.

 

[drgondog]

US 8th Air Force Aces, Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter pilots in WW2

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

Here looks like P-51 became 50% of around D-day, that's when the German's were down to 400 fighters on that front.

Lol - which fighter Took the LW to the D-Day minus 1 level (LuftFlotte 3 and LuftFlotte Reich)? It sure wasn't P-38s and the P-47/P-51 were tied for all destruction in the Theatre from 1942 - even though it had only been in combat ops since December 1943. The P-38 was just not very effective air to air or air to ground in the ETO.

And another quote from the one of the websites

Why don't you get three books, curl up and read them. Olynyk's Stars and Bars and Freeman's Mighty Eighth and Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF. You will get the transition dates for the conversions for each squadron.

Then get USAF Study 85 and load up in spreadsheet or go to the USAFHRC and pick the Victory credits, then match to aircraft by transition date - or buy my Our Might Always - History of the 355th, Volume I when published. I have done all that.

You need to do it yourself simply because you have so few facts to defend your POV in this forum where soooo many guys havd soooo much more fact and opinions based on facts than you have demonstrated so far.

 

[Njaco]

....because if its not on a website, its fiction.

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

I'd like to know how many of the German experten (thats German for 'ace') flew the Bf-109 before the Fw-190 or stayed with it - ya know, that mediocre German fighter that only had modest success.

 

[Aozora]

US 8th Air Force Aces, Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter pilots in WW2

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

Here looks like P-51 became 50% of around D-day, that's when the German's were down to 400 fighters on that front.

And another quote from the one of the websites

All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable.

Eeeee a website drawing from very few sources beats in depth research EVERY time! Do you actually read, digest and understand books?

 

[drgondog]

US 8th Air Force Aces, Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter pilots in WW2

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

Here looks like P-51 became 50% of around D-day, that's when the German's were down to 400 fighters on that front.

And another quote from the one of the websites

BTW - the plot of operational FG's is a.) wrong for 8th AF Fighter Command, and b.) wrong for 8th and 9th AF Fighter command combined. For example the 55th FG, the first P-38 FG diverted from MTO. It went operational in Mid October. No more until the 20th went operational in December.

So in combined 8th and 9th AF - October- there were seven P-47 FG's (4, 56, 78, 352, 354, 355, 356), one P-38, zero Mustang. Simple math P-38 = 1/8 = 12%. Check your plot - it should read july =0, aug = 0, sep = 0, Oct = 12.5% but it shows P-38 ramping in July up to 20% (instead of zero)

At end of December there were 9 P-47 FG (4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358, 359 -all 8th), two P-38 Groups (55, 20) and one Mustang Group (354 - 9th AF). Simple math
P-38 = 2/12 = 16.6%, P-47= 75%, Mustang = 1/12 = 8.25%, .
Your chart has P-38 =15%, P-47=70%, P-51 = 15%

At the end of February there were 12 P-47 FG (4, 56, 78, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358 (9th), 359, 361, 362 (9th), 365 (9th)), 2 P-38 (20, 55 (8th)), 4 Mustang (4, 354, 357, 363). Simple math
P-38 = 2/18 = 11.1%, P-47 = 12/18 = 66.7%, Mustang =4/18= 22.2%,

Your chart has P-38=21% , P-47 =58%% , P-51=21%

At the end of May, 1944 there were 15 P-47 (36 (9th), 48 (9th), 50 (9th), 56, 78, 353, 356, 358 (9th), 362 (9th), 365, 368, 371, 373, 404, 405, (all 9th); there were 6 P-38 Groups (20, 55, 364, 479 (all 8th), 367, 370 (9th AF), 9 Mustang (4, 339, 352, 354 (9th), 355, 357, 359, 361, 363). Total 8th/9th = 30. P-38 = 6/30 = 20%, P-47= 15/30 =50%, P-51= 9/30 = 30%

Your chart has P-38 = 18%, P-47 = 41%, P-51= 41%

At end of December 13 P-47FG = (36, , 48, 50, 56 (8th), 354 (converted from P-51), 358, 362, 365, 371, 373, 404, 405, 406); 2 P-38 (367, 368 (9th)) and 13 Mustang FG (4, 20, 55, 339, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 359, 361, 364, 479 (all 8th))
Total = 28. P-38 = 2/28= 7.1%, P-47 = 13/28= 46.4%, Mustang = 13/28 = 46.4%.

Your chart for Dec has zero P-38s, 15% for P-47 and 85% for P-51.

Do your own research or find better sources.

 

[wuzak]

US 8th Air Force Aces, Mustang and Thunderbolt fighter pilots in WW2

Looking at the list of the top ten US aces and there bio's, 9 of the top ten flew P-47's before P51's or were all P47 aces.

Here looks like P-51 became 50% of around D-day, that's when the German's were down to 400 fighters on that front.

And another quote from the one of the websites

All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944.

If P-38s and P-47s were causing great attrition in the Luftwaffe, then how can you explain:

• The Schweinfurt/Regensberg mission? Sure there weren't any P-38 units around, but there were P-47 units. But the Luftwaffe waited until the P-47s had to turn back.
• Schweinfurt II. This was in October 1943. Still no escort to anywhere near the target.
• The emergency long range fighter program which spawned Frankenstein's monster - the XP-75? If the P-47 was doing teh job, then why the need for a new long range fighter to be developed quickly? Note that the XP-75 program diverted resources (from both Fisher and Allison) away from the XB-39/V-3420 powered B-29 program.

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber, the ETO isn't really one of my strengths. That is to say, on this issue, I'd be going more on intuition than knowledge. That means, I'm flying on fumes. That means, I can't get into this dogfight. That means, I'd need to gas up on knowledge, first.

In a manner of speaking...

You poor fool! Can you see how I've duped you into thinking I might know what I'm talking about? (Fade to maniacal laughter...)