highest kill ratio

[DarrenW]

The Corsair and Hellcats got mega kamikaze kills where the pilots did no evasive maneuvers.

Hmm, not sure how 'mega' is defined here, but it must be understood that the first officially coordinated Kamikaze mission didn't occur until October 25th, 1944 (during the Battle of Leyte Gulf). Yes, there were isolated cases before this date where Japanese pilots purposely crashed their aircraft into allied targets but the facts surrounding each attack are not very clear and some were most certainly products of Japanese propaganda.

According to NACS, by the end of October 1944 F6F and F4U pilots claimed a combined total of 4,076 victories and it's safe to assume that a very small percentage of these aircraft were actually being utilized in a dedicated suicide role. During the period of sustained Kamikaze attacks (November '44 - EOW) the two fighters claimed a total of 3,229 enemy aircraft. According to a USAF source there were approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers and of these it is estimated that 14% (392 aircraft) were successful at hitting their targets. The US Navy performed a study concerning the effectiveness of their anti-aircraft defenses during the period of Kamikaze attacks and came up with 1,192 suicide planes making it to the ships, and of this total 878 were effectively destroyed by AA gunners. What's more interesting to me is that during this same period there were almost 2.3 times more enemy aircraft attacking ships in a conventional manner (bombs, torpedoes, machine gun fire, ect.):

Dr Richard P. Hallion, 1999, "Precision Weapons, Power Projection, and The Revolution In Military Affairs" (USAF Historical Studies Office).

HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

This would leave approximately 1,500 aircraft that were lost to causes not attributed to intentional crashes or US anti-aircraft fire. It must be remembered that British ships were also targeted during these same 2,800 attacks but I have not seen any data concerning the success rates of their AA gunners or aircraft. Factor in suicide planes brought down by USAAF fighters over the Philippines, Okinawa, and the Japanese home islands and the original number of Kamikaze aircraft "available" to be shot down by F6F and F4U pilots dwindles even further (army pilots claimed almost 700 enemy aircraft during the Philippine campaign alone). There were also 194 claims made by FM-2 pilots from November '44 onward so those need to be considered as well.

I wish there was an easy way to uncover an accurate number of claims which were actual Kamikaze pilots and which were on conventional missions but there really isn't. The data is all over the place depending on your source. If we were to rely on what I presented earlier and use the US Navy's ratio of Kamikaze to non-Kamikaze attacks on ships we would end up with a figure of 1,345 suicide planes being claimed by F6F and F4U pilots (3,229 divided by 2.3), with F6Fs scoring roughly two-thirds of them. But this is assuming that the ratio of Kamikaze to conventional attacks stayed relatively constant throughout the war which I'm sure it didn't.

Has anyone here ever tried to nail-down these figures before? After looking at just a small sampling I'm overwhelmed concerning how to approach such a monumental task.

 

[R Leonard]

You might find this interesting on the subject of defense against the Kamikazes. The link goes to the Defense Technical Information Center and calls "Defense Against Kamikaze Attacks in World War II and its Relevance To Anti-Ship Missile Defense; Volume I - An Analytical History of Kamikaze Attacks Against Ships of the United States Navy during World War II" by Nicolai Timenes, Jr. A PDF of about 114 pages.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725163.pdf

 

[DarrenW]

You might find this interesting on the subject of defense against the Kamikazes. The link goes to the Defense Technical Information Center and calls "Defense Against Kamikaze Attacks in World War II and its Relevance To Anti-Ship Missile Defense; Volume I - An Analytical History of Kamikaze Attacks Against Ships of the United States Navy during World War II" by Nicolai Timenes, Jr. A PDF of about 114 pages.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725163.pdf

Thank you for the link, it looks interesting. I'll have to take a closer look at it.

 

[DarrenW]

Thank you for the link, it looks interesting. I'll have to take a closer look at it.

Well I had a look at the report and on page 73 I found what I think explains fairly well the estimated number of Kamikaze aircraft brought down by fighters flying the CAP mission:

So after careful analysis of both Japanese and allied sources it was estimated that 1,118 kamikaze planes were most likely destroyed in the air by US Navy and Marine Corps fighters during the Philippine and Okinawa campaigns (which include both mass attacks and those of modest size, plus additional sorties flown from Formosa). This number isn't far off the estimate I gave in my earlier post (1,345 suicide airplanes claimed by F6F and F4U pilots). The report only considers those aircraft which left base and were on their way to attack US Navy ships and not those destroyed on the ground during fighter sweeps:

The data isn't broken down to individual fighter types (F6F, F4U, or FM-2) so determining how many were attributed to each type is problematic to say the least. But seeing that the F6F was the primary fleet fighter throughout the Kamikaze campaigns it would be a safe bet to assume they got the lion's share of these victories (up to two-thirds).

 

[oldcolt357]

Well I had a look at the report and on page 73 I found what I think explains fairly well the estimated number of Kamikaze aircraft brought down by fighters flying the CAP mission:

View attachment 568986

So after careful analysis of both Japanese and allied sources it was estimated that 1,118 kamikaze planes were most likely destroyed in the air by US Navy and Marine Corps fighters during the Philippine and Okinawa campaigns (which include both mass attacks and those of modest size, plus additional sorties flown from Formosa). This number isn't far off the estimate I gave in my earlier post (1,345 suicide airplanes claimed by F6F and F4U pilots). The report only considers those aircraft which left base and were on their way to attack US Navy ships and not those destroyed on the ground during fighter sweeps:

View attachment 568988

View attachment 568989

The data isn't broken down to individual fighter types (F6F, F4U, or FM-2) so determining how many were attributed to each type is problematic to say the least. But seeing that the F6F was the primary fleet fighter throughout the Kamikaze campaigns it would be a safe bet to assume they got the lion's share of these victories (up to two-thirds).

 

[oldcolt357]

First a few general comments - Good kill ratio data is tough to come by. It seams to be better (more accurate) for the pacific theater than Europe.
It's also almost impossible to get good apples to apples comparisons. The two top groups - the 56th fighter group - P47 vs the 4th fighter group - P51 might be a good place to start.
In Europe the German pilots of 1942-43 were better than 44-45. The early P38 and P47 pilots were fighting a tougher foe. I love the Mustang but it arrived a year later than the P47 and faced lesser trained enemy pilots.
When you look at the "Big Week" (February 20, 44) the campaign to cripple the German air force prior to the Normandy landings the P47 was used in numbers double that of the P38 and P51 combined. You can safely say, of the 3 fighters, the P47 contributed the most in breaking the German air force.
Also, again to try and get an apples to apples comparison if you only look at 8th air force fighter group kill / loss data you see that the fighter loss rates go up after switching over to the Mustang. The 8th converted to the Mustang because of it's longer range not that it was better at air to air combat.
Remember all fighter aircraft went through dramatic performance increases as the war went on. People who want to believe the P51 out performed the P47 are usually comparing the Mustang of 1944 with the Thunderbolt of 1943 and completely ignoring the P47s of 1945.
Finally, I've seen kill ratios for the Mustang as high as 11:1 when you look at the data it's no where near that, unless you're including aircraft destroyed on the ground. As you study kill loss ratio data for the 8th., as imperfect as it is, the P47 looks better and also is why it developed the reputation for bringing the pilots home.

 

[eagledad]

Oldcolt357

You may find this article, courtesy of Bill Marshall on Mike William's website, of interest;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

Eagledad

 

[Barrett]

I'm years late to this thread (unless I posted somewhere in between) but years ago when I HAD SPARE TIME, I went thru the massive USN Naval Aviation Statistics compilation and crunched the victory-loss numbers.
The hands-down winner:
The FM-2. Nothing else came close.
The Wilder Wildcat scored 420 against 13 known air-air losses which = 32-1.
The next highest I know of THAT WAS CLAIMED was the Finn 109s at c. 25.

 

[GregP]

Hi Barrett!

But the FM-2 is a Wildcat, so you have to either assign it to the Wildcats or break out every OTHER type of fighters by variant, too.

I've never seen a breakout of P-51 Mustangs by A-36, P-51A, P-51B/C, and P-51D/K ... have you? I've never seen a Hellcat breakout by F6F-3 and F6F-5, have you? I've never seen a breakout of F4U-1, F4U-1a, F4U-1d, and FF4U-4, have you?

When I look at the FM-2, I see a plane that has enhanced climb and dogfight performance, that was assigned to jeep carriers and had the mission of mopping up the small, basically bypassed and unsupplied Japanese bases that main forces had bypassed. All of them were short on supplies including fuel, ammunition, pilots, and airplanes, so the quality of the resistance the FM-2s saw was not exactly up to normal standards.

None of that diminishes the contributions of the FM-2 in the slightest but, in all fairness, it needs to be ranked in there together with all Wildcats or else the rest of the warbirds need a more detailed breakout so they can be evaluated on their own merits.

I'm SURE I could find some unit that flew a series of, say, 10 missions and had some kills with no losses. That doesn't mean the entire type they flew had an infinite kill ratio ... it only means I have looked at a narrow strata of data and have found a statistical outlier where there were no losses. If you put the FM-2 in with all the Wildcats, it has 1,327 kills against, 584 total losses due to all causes, of which 86 were AAA losses, 191 were to enemy aircraft, 124 were operational losses. That;s 401 combat losses including AAA, enemy aircraft, and combat operational losses.

That's 6.9 : 1 kills to every loss to enemy aircraft and 3.3 kills to all combat losses. The 32 : 1 is just FM kills to losses to enemy aircraft only, much as the F6F 19 : 1 is that same ratio ... kills to losses due to enemy aircraft only.

To be honest with myself, I have to lump the very nice FM in with the rest of the F4Fs to get a fair comparison, even if the Navy wanted to cherry-pick the FM and make a great propaganda claim. In the real world, the kill-to-loss ratio (assuming kill to loses due to enemy aircraft only) depended more on which aircraft were assigned to missions with higher probability of encountering enemy aircraft than to which airplane was used.

The Corsair was an excellent fighter, but had delays in approval for U.S. carrier service until we were embarrassed because the British put it on carriers right away. As a consequence, the F6F was the big-carrier mainstay and got the lion's share of the carrier-based kills. The Corsair was mostly land-based until late in the war and got the lion's share of the land-based kills. It just happened that the big carriers had more exposure to enemy aircraft combat than the little islands did because carriers attacked things and the islands just defended their bases except for relatively short-range attacks on nearby things like other islands or ships. So the carriers got most of the attack attention from the IJN and IJA.

None of this takes away from the fact that I really LIKE the FM-2. We have one locally that has visited our airshows in the recent past, flown by Tom Camp. See below:

It makes the same supercharger whistle as the P-51s when they fly aerobatics, but it's against a background of 9-cylinder radial sound rather than Merlin purring.

Here's a great FM-2 aerobatics demo. Note the steep climb out and double immelman after takeoff and turnaround:


View: https://youtu.be/9IEPRrPPcCo

 

[R Leonard]

But Greg . . . I know, we've been here before and several times . . . the USN, the guys driving the train, the guys keeping the statistics, chose way back when to count the FM-2 separate from the F4Fs because they thought it sufficiently different. Practitioners of the time trump opinion decades later. My father, who flew F4F-3s and F4F-4s in combat and always had a soft spot for the -3, always noted that the FM-2 was a different animal from a handling and operation standpoint . . . the only outstanding similarity was the hand-cranked landing gear.

If the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics document is so valuable, then where's the justification to throw out how they divide up their statistics separating the FM-2s? Because someone post 1990 doesn't like it? Sorry, does not work that way.

Oh, and the USN was operating F4Us in combat off carriers BEFORE the RN first deployed them on carriers. Most of the "RN was first to do XYZ with F4Us" fables are demonstrably nonsense.

 

[GregP]

Hi Rich,

We'll have to disagree on the FM-2, but that's no big deal. I'm not "hot to fight" about it. I'll call it a Wildcat and you can look at it as you want. People feel pretty free to rewrite history all the time. Look at the guys who rewrote Pappy Boyington's victory count. How come THEY get to change that and we don't got to apply simple logic to data analysis? It is tough to say its OK for one set of data but not another. And, I'm not trying to CHANGE the Wildcat data; I'm just trying to calculate it like all the other airplanes in the datatable weres calculated. The Navy was trying to get good propaganda value, not good comparisons, when they broke out the FM-2 from the F4F-3 and F4F-4.

Data analysis was one of my main jobs as an electrical engineer, and I stratify data according to logical rules, not propaganda value. That way, I get valid results. It's all too easy to lie with statistics when bias is involved. It doesn't matter if you stratify the Wildcat data, but your comparison will be faulty unless you stratify the data for the other things you compare it with, too. It's mox nix (uh ... macht nichts) to me how anyone else looks at it ... if I do it, I want good results. The thing is, I don't HAVE the data breakout for the other airplanes, so I combine all Wildcats just like the rest of the airplanes are combined under all variants. That way, I at LEAST get consistent results.

It's the same with Brewster Buffalos. I collect the U.S. Buffalo data together with the Finnish data and call it all Buffalo data so I get a result for the aircraft, and not for some Finnish combat unit that did particularly well with it (and they very surely DID) Edit.

The histories I look up say the British were using Corsairs on their carriers in Nov 43 and they were approved for use on U.S. carriers in "early 1944." That's from Wiki, the worst source in the world except for no source. The National Museum of the U.S. Navy also says "early 1944" for the Corsair on U.S. carriers, and other British sources also say Nov 43 for FAA Corsairs on British carriers. I can find that in maybe 3 - 4 sources pretty easily, at least one of which is associated with the U.S. Navy.

I know your father was Navy and you have a lot of knowledge about that, and I respect that. However, whichever way it is, it really doesn't matter to my main point. The point was not primarily about WHEN the Corsair was deployed on carriers. The point was that Hellcats got MOST of the carrier-based action and Corsairs got MOST of the land-based action. And that carriers were forcing battle on the Japanese much more than land-based aircraft were since it's hard to sail an island up to the next objective; that's what carriers are for.

If we look at Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, World War Two (commonly called NACS in here), Table 1, we can easily find that:

1) Carrier-based F6F Hellcats had 62,386 action sorties and carrier-based Corsairs had 9,581 action sorties. So, carrier-based Corsairs got 15.4% of the carrier-based sorties that Hellcats got.

2) Land-based Corsairs got 54,121 action sorties and land-based Hellcats got 4,116. So, land-based Hellcats got 7.6% of the action sorties that Land-based Corsairs got.

From these numbers it is very easy to see that Hellcats got most of the carrier-based action sorties and Corsairs got most of the land-based sorties, which was my point above anyway. So, the exact deployment date of the Corsair doesn't really enter into it much.

For those who don't have it, I attach NACS below.

Cheers, Rich! I'm a big fan of Hellcats and Corsairs no matter when they were deployed. Heck, I like the FM-2 as well, and it very certainly out-climbs an F4F. If I could have a warbird, I'd take an FM-2 as the warbird (for easier ... err ... cheaper maintenance than an R-2800 machine, at least for the engine), but only if I could fit a motor to the gear retraction mechanism!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Oh, and the USN was operating F4Us in combat off carriers BEFORE the RN first deployed them on carriers. Most of the "RN was first to do XYZ with F4Us" fables are demonstrably nonsense.

I believe this has been argued before on this forum, but my take is that Bowman's book "Vought F4U Corsair" has the VF-17 (USN) in combat off carriers in Nov 1943 (p39) and 10 Corsairs from 1830 Sqn were lifted on and (after the Atlantic crossing) were then flown off carrier HMS Slinger in Oct 1943. (Vintage Wings website)

I actually don't give a rat's who did what first. This statement didn't seem quite right. I expect it comes down to how deployed is defined. The RN carriers doing the transporting had a single Corsair ready for launch, but there was no way to recover it on a deck full of aeroplanes.

 

[GregP]

Not sure how this reply got in here ... didn't mean for it to do so.

 

[GrauGeist]

The US Navy recognizes the FM-2 as a separate aircraft type:

FM-2 Wildcat (Quarterdeck)

www.history.navy.mil

 

[GregP]

Yeah, it was very good propaganda. The government was and still IS very good at it. It even fools people in here.

Doesn't mean the data should be analyzed without thought, though.

The F4F-3 had a 1,200 hp R-1820, was 4,907 pounds empty and 7,423 pounds loaded. The FM-2 had a 1,350 hp R-1820, was 5,448 pounds empty and 8,271 pounds loaded. So, the F4F-3 was anywhere from 6.19 pounds per hp when loaded down to 4.09 pounds per hop when empty. The FM-2 was anywhere from 6.103 pounds per hp when loaded down to 4.04 pounds per hp when empty. That's a whopping difference of 1.3% when empty and 0.97% when loaded. I cannot see how they're significantly different in power to weight ratio.

The F6F-3 Hellcat had 2,000 hp, was 9,023 pounds empty, and 11,400 pounds normal fighter. The F6F-5 had 2,200 hp, was 9,238 pounds empty, and 12,598 normal load. So, the F6F-5 was anywhere from 4.19 pounds per hp when empty to 5.72 pounds per h when loaded. The F6F-3 was anywhere from 4.51 pounds per hp when empty to 5.70 pounds per hp when loaded. That's 6.92% different when empty and 0.46% difference when loaded.

What do you know? The two Hellcats are more different, power-to-weight-wise when empty, than the two Wildcats are ... but, you don't see anyone breaking out the F6F-3s from the F6F-5s, do you?

They're both so close to one another that it makes sense to treat them the same. Since we lump the Hellcats together, I choose to lump the Wildcats together out of common sense and try to stay carefully away from the wartime propaganda mill.

Your choice is yours to make. In the end, the FM-2 is just a Wildcat and is identified as a Wildcat everywhere I've ever seen an FM-2 on display with a sign in front of it.

Look at the data without preconceived notions or cherry-pick some Hellcat data to get even better kill-to-loss ratios on some operation somewhere. I'd rather look at the aggregate number with losses to enemy AAA, to enemy aircraft, and tp operational losses in combat all included to get a REAL picture of the airplane's effectiveness. When you do that, none of them are all that good, but they did the job when they were needed.

If we had the German data, we'd very likely find the Bf 109 had, by far, the most kills of any fighter type. But it ALSO had, by far, the most losses. And about 1/3 or slightly less were lost in operational takeoff or landing accidents while flying combat missions (operational losses), making their overall combat effectiveness much lower than it was if you just look at combat losses to Allied fighters alone.

Might be worth some thought, anyway.

My points about the Hellcat and Corsair stand and stand well against the real-life war data. The Hellcats DID have most of the carrier-based kills and the Corsairs DID have most of the land-based kills, and the carrier guys had about twice the kills of the land-based guys. Whether or not you calculate the FM-2 different from the rest of the Wildcats is not really of much import to that since the FM-2 only had 302 (Edit: changed to the correct number 302 from 422. which was a mistype ... I read the wrong column!) total kills to the 5,163 for the Hellcats and 2,140 for the Corsairs. If the FM-2s were missing entirely, we'd likely not notice the difference in the end. The regular carrier-based F4F Wildcats had 302 kills in about 1/12 of the missions and did pretty well ... but they also had way more losses than the FM, which was indicative of poor initial training and the fact that they were fighting the cream of the Japanese combat-tested Naval pilots early in the war, and weren't assigned to mop up bypassed installations in the Pacific like the FM-2s were.

C'mon guys, don't blindly follow Navy propaganda. Look at the data and analyze it like you wanted to get valid results.

What percent different from one another makes one variant a different airplane? Well, the F9F Cougar and F9F Panther were two wildly different airplanes with the same fuselage, and their performance was nowhere NEAR the same. The swept-wing Cougar was 75 mph faster. That's enough to warrant different statistics, perhaps. A 1.3% difference in power-to-weight just isn't, and adding a newer engine with 150 more hp shouldn't significantly change procedures for operating the airplane other than new WER settings and times allowable. If it did, why didn't the later Hellcats and Corsairs, with 200+ more hp, need different procedures?

However, if you choose to see the FM-2 as different from the rest of the Wildcats, it's all good. We still won and the regular F4Fs still got plenty of victories.

Cheers to all.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with Greg here. From my understanding the FM-2 was just a General Motors produced F4F Wildcat. Sure it was an improved and slightly modified one (different engine, 4 guns, and larger/taller tail), but it was still a Wildcat. Besides the letter M is simply General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division code. Even the US Navy (Museum) calls it an "improved MODEL of the F4F."

FM-2 Wildcat (Quarterdeck)

www.history.navy.mil

The B-17G was different from the B-17F, which was different from the B-17C, but they are all B-17 Flying Fortresses right? Same with the Bf 109 right? Look at its evolution from the Bf 109B to the E to the F to the late model G and Ks. Nobody says one is a 109 and one isn't.

 

[ThomasP]

FWIW I suspect that the popular subculture divorce of the FM-2 from the F4F/FM-1 is simply a more palatable way of explaining the difference in success between the 2(ish) types.

Many people do not wish to acknowledge that the Japanese pilots faced by the USN/USAAF pilots in the early-war were quite good (quite possibly better than the USN), or that the early-war USN/USAAF pilots may not have been particularly good. The fact that historically - in general and under similar circumstances - the USN pilots performed about even with the IJN pilots apparently is not impressive enough.

In the same way, many people do not wish to acknowledge that the F4F/FM-1 and FM-2 were somewhat mediocre performers, and that the early-war A6M and Ki-43 were as good or better in performance, effectively (fighter vs fighter) as good in armament, and only lacking in the areas of protection (armour and SSFT).

etc.

I could be wrong (about the psychology).