Mustang, vs. Corsair, vs. Hellcat - Which is best?

[Sickles]

Which do you think had the best all around performance for a fighter aircaraft?
-Speed, manouverability, firepower, range, durability.

Mustang - Gorgeous Masculine fast, pinnacle of piston engine aircaraft

Corsair - Big, pretty, versatile, mean, "Pappy Boyington"

Hellcat - Really Big, tough, ugly, war winner.

[Panther F]

Mustang - Gorgeous Masculine fast, pinnacle of piston engine aircaraft

Corsair - Big, pretty, versatile, mean, Pappy Boyington

Hellcat - Really Big, tough, ugly, war winner.

Best what? Fighter? Carrier aircraft? Bomber escort? :mrgreen:

[kallinikosdrama1992]

Now i agree with pantherf . These are not aircrafts to be compared . P-51 is fighter which was build for escort and for high flights . F4U was the first fighter (i think) which beat Zero . The F6F was the one which destroyed japanese air power . The two last ( Corsair and Hellcat ) can be compared because they were both carrier fighters .

[B-17engineer]

A more accurate thread would be Corsair, Hellcat, I suppose you could use the Buffalo but no one will vote for that.......:)

[Sickles]

Guys...
It's really a simple question. Each aircaraft had its own strengths and weaknesses. They were all used in the pacific theater, 1 took off from soil and 1 from a floating deck. and 1 did both. Makes no difference that 1 was an army aircraft and 2 are Navy.
Which one of these was the best all around U.S. fighter?

I am not asking which is the best Navy fighter. Although you may answer that as well.

It is well established, the P-51 was very manouverable in the horizontal but inferior to the Corsair in the vertical. It is my understanding the Hellcat was about the equal to the Corsair in all dimensions but was slightly slower due to being a larger craft. However NO allied plane had a higher kill ratio than the Hellcat during the war. Why was this?

[Clave]

Aesthetically, the Mustang every time, but the Corsair has a certain brutal charm...

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-n/P51D_RAF_112Sqn_Site.jpg

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-c/F4U5_Argentina_2Esq_Site.jpg

[Sickles]

Clave, regarding your comments, right on!
...Regarding the pics, where are the U.S. markings?

[Clave]

I was just teasing...:mrgreen:

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-n/P51D_328FS_Site.jpg

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-n/P51D_343FS_Site.jpg

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-n/P51D_352FS_Site.jpg

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-c/F4U1A_VMF214_Site.jpg

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-c/F4U1A_VMF111_Site.jpg

[Sickles]

Ahhh Yes, makes the heart flutter!

[jrw1268]

My pick would have to be the Corsair. Jap aces claimed it to be the best fighter the Allies had. And it was also a very good ground attack fighter. It was a good enough plane that production ran from 1940 to 1952, the longest of any piston engine fighter.

[Panzerknacker]

Aesthetically, the Mustang every time, but the Corsair has a certain brutal charm...



Specially with that Argentine Navy insignia :mrgreen:

The Corsair all the time, just imagine this aircraft was being deployed in the ETO...a real night mare for the Luftwaffes Bf-109s.

[tankgeezer]

Here I thought it was the Mustang, and the Corvair,,,,

[George Eller]

-

Saleen Mustang
http://www.bickford.net/2005/saleen/Images/13.jpg
http://www.jeffsandquist.com/TheNewMustangRocks.aspx
http://www.saleen.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleen%2C_Incorporated

-

1938 Phantom Corsair
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/141232155_2f6ec43643.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/puckman/141232155/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Corsair

-

Melling Hellcat
http://www.evo.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_401/car_photo_200729_7.jpg
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/200485/hellcat_leaps_into_action.html
http://www.mellingsportscars.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melling_Hellcat

-

[Sickles]

TANKGEEZER and GEORGE,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! makes the choice harder doesn't it? !!!!

[Nickdfresh]

Aesthetically, the Mustang every time, but the Corsair has a certain brutal charm...

http://clave.warpstorm.com/gallery-n/P51D_RAF_112Sqn_Site.jpg
...


I wonder how many P-51Ds the RAF operated? What were their primary missions since I assume escorting RAF Bomber Command was left to nightfighters?

[Panzerknacker]

What were their primary missions since I assume escorting RAF Bomber Command was left to nightfighters?

Armed recce and attack missions.

[Digger]

If you take into account survivability as a factor I would put the Mustang third. While the Merlin engine gave it scintillating performance, being a liquid cooled engine it was suspectable to battle damage, often one hit capable of bringing it down.

Wheras the radials of the F6 and F4u were capable of taking heavy damage and still survive. This was also true of the P-47.

digger

[George Eller]

-

Vought Corsair
http://au.geocities.com/thefortysecondinww2/level2/aircraft/vought_corsair.htm
http://au.geocities.com/thefortysecondinww2/images/planes/vought-corsair.jpg

-

Vought F4U Corsair
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4u_corsair.html
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/674/lulubelle3os3.jpg

-

Pappy Boyington's Corsair
F4U-1A, Bureau Number 18086
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington3.html#top

-

Major Gregory "Pappy" Boyington
C.O. VMF-214, Black Sheep Squadron
"Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum." - Pappy's self-assessment
Undoubtedly the most colorful and well known Marine Corps' ace was Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, commanding officer of VMF-214.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4583/boyingtonpo9.jpg
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington.html
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington2.html#top
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_vmf214.html#top
http://www.acepilots.com/aces214.html#top

http://usfighter.tripod.com/boyingto.htm

-

Greg "Pappy" Boyington VMF 214
USMC VMF 214 Blacksheep Squadron CO from September 12, 1943 to January 3, 1944
http://www.freewebs.com/blacksheepone/photoalbum.htm
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2048/pilotsyj9.jpg http://www.freewebs.com/blacksheepone/blacksheep2.jpg

VMF-214
http://usfighter.tripod.com/VMF214.htm

-

[Sickles]

In reading "Flight Journal" mags a few years ago, I remember a test pilot who flew both planes said there really wasn't much difference in performance of Hellcat and Corsair.
In fact he stated the Hellcat was just about as fast as a Corsair, not the "rated" 375 mph that is credited to it.

[fallmonk]

Personaly corsair every time , if it had made it to the ETO and got more "press" it probably would have been on more peoples mind , thats not to take any thing away from the mustang ,they saved many a B-17/B-24 crew , and turned the war at a pivotal time

[gumalangi]

P51D and Vought and no other

[temujin77]

My vote for the Corsair. Capable fighter aside, how can you not fall in love with the beautiful gullwings?

[the_librarian]

A more accurate thread would be Corsair, Hellcat, I suppose you could use the Buffalo but no one will vote for that.......:)

Boyington liked the Buffalo...I think...I was doing research for my blog post on the Flying Tigers and ran across this quote:

(I've edited the quote as this is a family friendly board...)

"... I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other ****, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little ***** could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and ****** it up." With that he reached for his beer and was silent again...."

(Source: http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm)

[redcoat]

Armed recce and attack missions.
They also saw service as low level fighter escort for the tactical bombers of the 2TAF RAF. The most famous mission in which they were employed in this role was as escorts to the Mosquito bombers on the Amiens prison raid

[fallmonk]

I wonder how many P-51Ds the RAF operated? What were their primary missions since I assume escorting RAF Bomber Command was left to nightfighters?

Am i not right in thinking the mustangs the RAF used where from the photo recconisans Sqs?

Sure if it wasnt for the RAF , there wouldnt have been the mustang we all love ,or better yet it was the rolls royce merlin in the thing that made it great , if not for that it would have still been the A-10(?????????) with the allison engine ,

[Nickdfresh]

Am i not right in thinking the mustangs the RAF used where from the photo recconisans Sqs?

Sure if it wasnt for the RAF , there wouldnt have been the mustang we all love ,or better yet it was the rolls royce merlin in the thing that made it great , if not for that it would have still been the A-10(?????????) with the allison engine ,

Correct. What's amazing is that the American design group basically rushed the P-51 through with what they had, and little support from either the British or American gov't, and still produced something quite amazing once it was paired with the stellar Merlin.

Even with the Allison, people forget it was pretty good as a fighter at low-level, a very good ground attack platform, and that the USAAF adapted it to a role as a dive-bomber for a short time...

[Dark1995]

i go with the mustang fast and sleek
but the corsair is a big capable weapon

[generalderpanzertruppen]

Vought F4-U Corsair anyday!



Troy
www.feldpost.tv

[mike M.]

I would say the Hellcat...I think the F6F itself and the engine can take more hits than the P51 and continue to fly and the ability to operate off carriers or land.

[Sickles]

MIKE M.
Good point. No other airplane that saw considerable action had a 19/1 kill ratio like the Hellcat.

[windrider]

It's hard to tell which is best, and kill ratios certainly don't do much to help.
It's impossible to compare japanese planes in the Pacific to German planes in ETO.
If I remember correctly, the japanese planes, for most of the war, had no armor or self-sealing tanks, which explain why they were blown-up so easily.

[Timbo in Oz]

here's some info about the P51 in RAF service. Quite a few of the packard-Merlin versions saw squadron service.

It seems that many of the pilots preferred the Malcolm hood (like the Spitfire had but an even better rear view) rather than the clear teardrop type.

My Dad's squadron were re-equipped with Mustang III's and (p51B or C) and IV's (D and K) in Nove 1944 in NE Italy, theywere already flying strikes into Yugoslavia.



http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/must1.html


and some on the Malcolm hood

http://www.aimhigherjets.com/P_51_RAF_Poland_p/ahj-403.htm

Timbo in Oz

[Nickdfresh]

Thank you for the links.

[ww2admin]

For the mustang, it was all engine...but for the Spitfire, it was about the wing. I don't know, but I'd probably say the Spitfire would be my plane of choice at low altitudes.

[HAWKEYE]

Stats can be deceiving, did the Hellcat shoot down more planes than any of the other USA fighters or did it have a higher kill to loss ratio?? There can be a great big difference in the two.

I checked:
Wiki says the Hellcat had the best overall kill score with over 5000 downed to the Corsair's 2000 +. But the Corsair was regulated to more bombing and ground attack missions later in the war while the F6F was tearing up the IJN fighters head to head facing mostly bottom of the barrel Japanese pilots.

The Corsair was a great little-heralded dive bomber as well, they used the landing gear for dive breaks and could really blow the hell outta stuff..the little gear doors on the front of the gear were actually designed to be used as dive brakes.
The Corsair bore the brunt of fighter-bomber missions, delivering 15,621 tons of bombs during the war (70% of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war).

[redcoat]

For the mustang, it was all engine...but for the Spitfire, it was about the wing. I don't know, but I'd probably say the Spitfire would be my plane of choice at low altitudes.You would want the Spitfire IX for low altitude, but for high altitude you would need the Spitfire XIV (top speed 446mph at 26,000ft) of which the German ace Galland once said "The only good thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them" ;)

[snebold]

The Corsair bore the brunt of fighter-bomber missions, delivering 15,621 tons of bombs during the war (70% of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war).

and a quote from the P-47 thread.

P-47´s [...] delivered 132482tons of bombs

somehow doesn´t add up... (anybody else who thinks the P-47 number is high?)

The only good thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them"

Always wondered why there were so few, they were not introduced that late. Lack of Griffon engines?

For the price of 3 F4U´s you could have 5 F6F´s, that would probably make the latter popular among those behind the desk?

[George Eller]

The Corsair bore the brunt of fighter-bomber missions, delivering 15,621 tons of bombs during the war (70% of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war).

and a quote from the P-47 thread.

P-47´s [...] delivered 132482tons of bombs

somehow doesn´t add up... (anybody else who thinks the P-47 number is high?)



-

Or maybe the Corsair's figures (15,621 tons) are a bit low to be claiming 70 percent of total bombs dropped by fighters during the war. Assuming a half ton of bombs (two 500 lb bombs = 1/2 ton) per sortie, we can double total tons by two and come up with an estimated 31,242 sorties. If we assume 500 lbs of bombs per sortie, we can multiply 15,621 x 4 and come up with an estimated 62,484 sorties. The P-47 Thunderbolt flew approximately 546,000 combat sorties.

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
http://www.p47millville.org/P47-Millville.cfm?pageName=P47-Thunderbolt

Combat Statistics:

546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped
135 million rounds of 50 cal. fired
1-1/2 million hours of combat
20 million gal of fuel consumed
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed
More victories than any other American aircraft in W.W.II

-

The Tank's Formidable Enemies
http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/8.htm

The Ninth Air Force and the Second Tactical Air Force had vast quantities of fighter-bombers. IX TAC, for example, had twenty four squadrons of Republic P47 Thunderbolts, while 2 TAF had eighteen squadrons of Hawker Typhoons. Both were beefy, powerful aircraft, capable of absorbing considerable battle damage and still returning to base. Of the two, the P47 was the more survivable, in part because it had a radial piston engine. The Typhoon had a liquid-cooled engine and "chin" radiator installation that was vulnerable to ground fire. Affectionately known as the Jug, the P47, on occasion, returned to base not merely with gaping holes from enemy defenses, but with whole cylinders blown off its engine. Pilot memoirs reveal that while the P47 was regarded with affection and even fierce loyalty, the Tiffie (as the Typhoon was dubbed) had earned an uncomfortable respect and awe bordering on fear.

Both fighter-bombers had, for their time, prodigious weapons- carrying capabilities. Both could lug up to a 2,000-lb bomb load, one 1,000-lb bomb under each wing. Typically, however, both operated with smaller loads. A P47 would carry an external belly fuel tank and one 500-lb bomb under each wing; many were also configured so that the plane could carry air-to-ground rockets, typically ten 5-in HVARs (high-velocity aircraft rockets). P47s on an armed reconnaissance mission would usually operate three flights, two armed with a mix of bombs and rockets, and the cover flight carrying only rockets. Over 80 percent of the bombs dropped by P47s during the European campaign were 500-lb weapons; less than 10 percent were 1,000-lb bombs, and the difference was made up by smaller 260-lb fragmentation bombs and napalm. While acknowledging the spectacular effects and destructiveness of rockets, the AAF considered bombs more effective for "road work" due to accuracy problems in firing the solid-fuel weapons.

-

[R Leonard]

USAAF fighter aircraft, all of them, delivered a total of 216,929 tons of bombs on targets.

Tonnage delivered by fighters by theater:

ETO: 92,856
MTO: 61,429
POA: 2,274
FEAF: 41,141
CBI: 18,680
Alaska: 549

Did the P-47 deliver some 60% of this tonnage? I would not be surprised.

However, the claim of more victories than any other US type is just plain preposterous nonsense.

Credited claims for aircraft flown by US pilots by theater:

Pacific Theater (includes Aleutians, Central Pacific, South Pacific and Southwest Pacific operating areas):

F6F = 5,257
F4U/FG = 2,155
P-38 = 1,700
F4F/FM-1/FM-2 = 1,408
P-47 = 697 = Fourth Place
P-40 = 661
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 297
P-39/P-400 = 288
P-61 = 64
F2A = 10
P-36 = 3
P-70 = 2
P-26 = 2
P-35 = 1

European Theater:

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 4,239
P-47 = 2,686 = Second Place
P-38 = 497
P-61 = 59
Spitfire = 15
F6F = 8
Beaufighter = 6
P-39/P-400 = 3
F4F = 2

Mediterranean Theater:

P-38 = 1,431
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 1,063
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 364
P-47 = 263 = Fifth Place
F4F = 26
Beaufighter = 25
P-39/P-400 = 25
Mosquito = 1

China-Burma-India Theater, including the AVG:

P-40 = 741
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 345
P-38 = 157
P-47 = 16 = Fourth Place
P-39/P-400 = 5
P-61 = 5
P-43 = 3

Or, we can break it down by just European opponents?

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,302
P-47 = 2,949 = Second Place
P-38 = 1,928
P-40 = 592
Spitfire = 379
P-61 = 59
Beaufighter = 31
P-39/P-400 = 28
F4F/FM-2 = 28
F6F = 8
Mosquito = 1

Or, just against the Japanese?

F6F = 5,257
F4U = 2,155
P-38 = 1,857
F4F/FM-2 = 1,408
P-40 = 1,402
P-47 = 713 = Sixth Place
P-51/A-36/F-6 = 642
P-39/P-400 = 293
P-61 = 69
F2A = 10
P-43 = 3
P-36 = 3
P-26 = 2
P-70 = 2
P-35 = 1

I know, let’s add them all together:

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,944 = 1st Place
F6F = 5,265 = 2nd Place
P-38 = 3,785 = 3rd Place
P-47 = 3,662 = 4th Place
F4U = 2,155 = 5th Place
P-40 = 1,994 = 6th Place
F4F/FM-2 = 1,436 = 7th Place
Spitfire = 379 = 8th Place
P-39/P-400 = 321 = 9th Place
P-61 = 128 = 10th Place
Beaufighter = 31 = 11th Place
F2A = 10 = 12th Place
P-43 = 3 = 13th Place tied
P-36 = 3 = 13th Place tied
P-26 = 2 = 14th Place tied
P-70 = 2 = 14th Place tied
P-35 = 1 = 15th Place tied
Mosquito = 1 = 15th Place tied

A definitive FOURTH PLACE for the P-47. And from whence come the numbers? Official USN and USAAF statistics and various well known compilations such as the works of Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner.

These are credits awarded for shooting down enemy aircraft. Maybe someone wants to inflate scores by counting aircraft destroyed on the ground . . . sorry, that’s not the way the game is played.

And while it is certainly true that the F4U delivered more bomb tonnage than the F6F, 15,621 to 6,503 it is also interesting to note that F4U pilots a higher percentage of fighters per credit than did the F6F. 78% of F4U credits were for enemy fighters versus 72% for F6Fs. The overall USN/USMC fighter types percentage of credits for enemy fighters was 71%, the overall percentage for all USN types was 70%.

And the noted F4U's 70% of fighter bomb tonnage? That is 70% of USN/USMC fighter delivered bomb tonnage, not ALL fighter delivered tonnage.


Rich

[ww2admin]

Wow Rich! That's a lot of good information. VERY informative. Thanks.

[snebold]

Thank you Leonard, that´s impressive!

And if you have any more of this kind:

And the noted F4U's 70% of fighter bomb tonnage? That is 70% of USN/USMC fighter delivered bomb tonnage, not ALL fighter delivered tonnage
please share with us, it´s extremely annoying that many books on aircraft throw numbers around without specifying where and when. Some sources on the P-47 fx. will claim a total number of sorties in WWII, that is the number of ETO sorties with US forces only, without stating that and suddenly you have 3 different numbers, all correct in their own context, but no of the sources bothered to mention the context and then it´s pretty useless.

The reason why I thought the P-47 tonnage was high was because I compared to the B-25 (84980t with the US in the ETO), and all it did was bomb, but it had only "only" 63177 missions in which to drop them.

If we say the P-47 carried 454kg on an average attack mission (sometimes it would have more, sometimes it would have rockets, counting for 0t), it needs about 290000 attack sorties to to reach the 132482figure, more than half of all sorties. This is probably not unreasonable. It does say something about the P-47 (and enemy fighter opposition): being one of the very best high altitude fighters it was still chosen to do so much ground attack work.

Does anybody have some range with load statistics for the P-47N?
(if nothing else, then for my little thought experiment of replacing the B-17´s in the ETO with 47N´s and P-38 pathfinders, had the war lasted a little longer ;) )

[snebold]

back again, sorry to bother, but what are these shortenings for (PAC and Aleutians?)?
POA: 2,274
FEAF: 41,141

China-Burma-India Theater, including the AVG:
P-43 = 3

Or, just against the Japanese?
P-43 = 6

Do you have more info on these?
(107 P-43´s were delivered to the Chinese in 1942, 152 to RAAF as photo-rec. aircraft, and none are supposed to have served in combat with the US)
Is it 3 AVG, + 3 by US citizens flying for RAAF or...?

[George Eller]

I know, let’s add them all together:

P-51/A-36/F-6 = 5,944 = 1st Place
F6F = 5,265 = 2nd Place
P-38 = 3,785 = 3rd Place
P-47 = 3,662 = 4th Place
F4U = 2,155 = 5th Place
P-40 = 1,994 = 6th Place
F4F/FM-2 = 1,436 = 7th Place
Spitfire = 379 = 8th Place
P-39/P-400 = 321 = 9th Place
P-61 = 128 = 10th Place
Beaufighter = 31 = 11th Place
F2A = 10 = 12th Place
P-43 = 6 = 13th Place
P-36 = 3 = 14th Place
P-26 = 2 = 15th Place tied
P-70 = 2 = 15th Place tied
P-35 = 1 = 16th Place tied
Mosquito = 1 = 16th Place tied

A definitive FOURTH PLACE for the P-47. And from whence come the numbers? Official USN and USAAF statistics and various well known compilations such as the works of Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner.

Rich

Thanks for the information Rich Leonard - looks like I stand corrected if you go only by total "air-to-air" victories claimed. Also see that you have included F-6 (post war P-51) - hope the figures for the P-51 do not include Korean War kills.

I see that you cite official USN and USAAF statistics and Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner. Just curious though on your exact sources for these numbers? It would be interesting to see total "air-to-air" kills included from other nations that also flew these aircraft. Also total kills - including those destroyed on the ground.

The figure of 3,752 air-to-air kills that I quoted in the P-47 thread seems close to your numbers (3,662) shown above and would still place the P-47 in fourth place overall in "air-to-air" kills if your totals are correct.

The other figure that I quoted for the P-47 - 11,878 enemy planes destroyed - did include planes destroyed on the ground.

Do you have figures by fighter for total numbers of planes destroyed - including those destroyed on the ground?

Colonel Francis S. 'Gabby' Gabreski - top scoring WWII USAAF ace in Europe (P-47 Thunderbolt)
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89490&postcount=12
Gabreski was credited with a record 31 kills in WWII - twenty-eight enemy aircraft destroyed in aerial combat, plus three on the ground.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/808/gabreskip472fn.jpg
http://www.18thfwa.org/whosWho/FrancisGabreski/FrancisGabreski_files/image006.jpg

-

[R Leonard]

. . . Also see that you have included F-6 (post war P-51) - hope the figures for the P-51 do not include Korean War kills.-

F-6 was not the Korean War designation for the P-51, that was F-51. The F-6 was the photo recon version of the P-51 which first entered service in 1943. No, my totals do NOT include Korean War numbers.

. I see that you cite official USN and USAAF statistics and Frank Olynyk or Ray Wagner. Just curious though on your exact sources for these numbers? It would be interesting to see total "air-to-air" kills included from other nations that also flew these aircraft. Also total kills - including those destroyed on the ground.-

See my next post regarding sources. I don't particularly have any figures on strafing results, mostly because I find them only of passing interest. The USAAF Statistical Digest has some generic totals by types (heavy bombers - medium & light bombers - fighters) by theaters. See tables 167 thru 172.

.Do you have figures by fighter for total numbers of planes destroyed - including those destroyed on the ground?-

See above, frankly, more research time than I'm willing to devote to a subject in which I've little interest. Especially since most of my interest lies in the Pacific Theater and is mostly restricted to USN/USMC aviation.

[R Leonard]

All sources fairly easy to get with some diligent web searching, but some require a little extra digging to make things like unit/aircraft type match up and some that is not so readily available, but, rather, the result of several years of research and balancing and cross referencing numerous spread sheets.

A lot of good, but somewhat generic, data on the USAAF is available in the USAAF Statistical Digest, found in various places on the web. The Naval Historical Center offers a download the US Naval Aviation Combat Statistics WW2 document.

The USAAF Stat Digest can be readily found in spreadsheet ready form, just a cut and past job for the pages you might want. The USN Aviation Combat Stats document is a PDF scan and it does have minor, but annoying, calculation errors found in the original. I moved all its tables to spread sheets and re formulated all the calculation fields. Having this stuff in spread sheets makes it easy to move around and make calculations/analysis not found in the originals but using the original data.

Also web available, from the USAF, though I can’t recall where (once I have it I don’t worry about where it came from) is a list of all USAAF credits, by pilot, with date of credit and the pilot’s unit. You can take that info and run it against the unit histories and pretty much determine for about 90% of cases the aircraft involved. Of course, it is a case of “rats, rats, rats” when you’ve laboriously done that long ago and then get your hands on the magnificent work done by Frank Olynyk and find he’s done it for you, but “goody, goody, goody” where in the process he cleared up any ambiguities in your own work. For example, a problem I found with the USAF list I was using long years ago was that it is pretty sparse on early action at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines. Frank’s work solves that problem.

I tend to stick to official publications, and steer away from any aficionado or enthusiast websites for my information. You might be surprised what’s out there . . . official USAAF unit histories, various statistical analyses and so on which some careful searches might uncover. For example, and this is odd because my field of interest is pretty much narrowed on US naval aviation in WW2, I haves some 90 official USAAF reports and/or unit histories. For US naval aviation in WW2, I’ve probably well over 600 related official reports, histories, manuals, and documents, plus about another 500 official documents of just general naval interest or covering naval aviation of other periods. All plucked from the internet. In all, the library consists of some 500 plus books on military subjects, including well over 300 on naval aviation subjects, and another 75 or so covering the USN, generally, USN interwar, USN WW2 and generally WW2 in the Pacific. The files have some 1450 document, reports, manuals, publications, studies, articles, and what have you, well over two thirds from official sources; and about 350 other periodicals mostly public, but many, albeit, somewhat restricted in their availability general public due to certain membership requirements, such as, for examples “American Fighter Aces Association Bulletin” or “Foundation - Journal of the National Museum of Naval Aviation” or “The Hook - Journal of Carrier Aviation” or “Wings of Gold - Journal of the Association of Naval Aviation”.

As far as credits for shooting up airplanes on the ground are concerned, why don’t we count trucks or, better yet, dog carts and wheelbarrows, too. Victory credits only count if they’re against somebody in the air. My personal opinion is that anyone who wants to count planes shot up on the ground and trying to equate that to victories is simply disingenuously trying to inflate the numbers.

If I may quote USAF Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft, WWII by Wesley P. Newton, Jr., Calvin F. Senning, et al, published by the Office of Air Force History, Headquarters USAF, 1978 (and some 685 pages in length): “Furthermore, for the Army Air Forces to record a claim for the destruction of an enemy aircraft as a credit, the flyer had to be a member of the Army Air Forces or an allied flyer assigned or attached to an Army Air Forces unit engaged in air-to-air combat during the period 7 December 1941 to 14 August 1945.” (Page 7)

Note “air-to-air combat”; nothing about planes on the ground.

Further, the document goes on to say, “An aircraft was deemed as destroyed if it were a heavier-than-air craft, manned and which one might expect to be armed, that, as a result of air-to-air action, crashed into the ground or water, disintegrated in the air, or was abandoned by its pilot. Credit was also given for intentional ramming of an enemy aircraft or for maneuvering in such a way as to cause the enemy plane to crash.” (Page 8)

Pretty much eliminates the concept of “credit” for hosing down parked airplanes, especially for the USAAF. I don’t ever recall having seen anything similar in print for the USN, but I’m not aware of any attempt to call planes shot up on the ground by USN pilots “victories” or “credits.” That’s not to say there’s no information on planes destroyed on the ground by USN pilots, there most certainly is, but that information is strictly noted as such and not as credits.

Of course, there’s the usual warnings about P-61 night fighter crew members in some theaters each receiving one victory credit for each shoot down. Pretty easy to spot most of them where you see privates and corporals with victory credits.

Beware of the afficiando/enthusiast website, except where they offer copies of original documents, unless you are absolutely sure of the quality of the research and it is not just some breathless, gee whiz, recounting and quoting from someone else’s site.

Beware of Martin Caiden types and, worse, those who would present his work as sources for their research. You only have to once read of P-38s with dead men at their controls appearing magically back over their bases hours after they should have run out of fuel with the words “it’s true” to realize there may be a problem with everything in the book (see Fork-Tailed Devils).

Also, here’s a freebee, the “USAF Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft, WWII” document can be found at http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/1039707.pdf , however, be warned, it is 27.2 Mb. This document is not to be confused with the list mentioned in my paragraph 4 above. That was a list that I just cut and pasted into a spreadsheet. There are quite a few interesting documents available in the ‘numbered studies’ series. Check out
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/studiesintro.asp

Re: P-43's

6 ? ? ? my bad, that’s a typo. Three (3) is the correct number.

17 Aug 42 – 1LT Burrall Barrum and 2LT Philip O’Connell, 75th FS USAAF, both flying P-43’s, share a credit for shooting down a twin engine type identified as a “type 45”.
3 Sep 42 – 2LT Martin Cluck, 75th FS USAAF, in a P-43, awarded a credit for shooting down a “Type 97” fighter.
2 Jan 43 – Capt Jeffery Wellborn, 76th FS USAAF, in a P-43, awarded a credit for shooting down a “I-45”

Ranking corrected in my earlier post . . . thanks for the good eyes!

Abbreviations are theaters

ETO - European Theater of Operations
MTO - Mediterranean Theater of Operations
POA - Pacific Operations Area (also denoted in some USAAF sources as CentPac or Central Pacific Theater)
FEAF - Far East Air Force (also denoted in some USAAF sources as SWPac or Southwest Pacific Theater
CBI - China-Burma-India Theater
Alaska - Alaska-Aleutians-North Pacific Theater


Rich

[George Eller]

-

Rich,

Thanks for the information and tips. I can see that you have done some serious and thorough research. I stand corrected on the F-6 and F-51 mix up.

I did some checking on the kills credited to American aces, and it appears that you are correct. It seems that they were awarded for "air-to-air" kills. Although the ETO's top American ace Francis "Gabby" Gabreski was officially credited by the USAAF with 28 aircraft destroyed in air combat and 3 on the ground, (flying 166 combat sorties), his stats only show his "air-to-air" kills - see chart below.

Although, I would not discount the importance of planes destroyed on the ground. As many planes that were destroyed on the ground were that many less that did not live to fight another day. Looking at gun cam footage of strafing runs on parked planes, it appears fairly difficult while flying at high speed with the added hazard of ground fire directed at your plane. It seems that many planes were missed or only lightly damaged.

P-51 Mustangs seem to have done their share of destruction on enemy aircraft on the ground also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#U.S._operational_service
The Eighth, Ninth and Fifteenth Air Forces' P-51 groups, all but three of which flew another type before converting to the Mustang, claimed some 4,950 aircraft shot down (about half of all USAAF claims in the European theater) and 4,131 destroyed on the ground.
That is a total of 9,081 total planes destroyed by P-51's of the Eighth, Ninth and Fifteenth Air Forces.

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html
Several World War II fighter aces who remained on active duty became general officers, but only a few reached four-star rank. One of them was John C. Meyer, fourth-ranking US ace in Europe, with 24 confirmed air-to-air victories, including one German jet. Of the top 15 Eighth Air Force aces, Meyer also was the leader in aircraft destroyed on the ground, the most hazardous of fighter operations.
Note: his first 3 victories were while flying P-47, the rest were with the P-51.

Aces of the Eighth Air Force in World War Two
European Theater, ETO, the U.S. Eighth Air Force
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8707/etousaafaces01ru7.jpg

Note: Although P-47 aces made up 7 of the top 10 in the ETO, P-51 aces were tied with the P-47 in the top 20 with 10 apiece. In the top 57, P-51 aces were ahead of P-47 aces 28 to 20.

-

American Aces of WWII
http://www.acepilots.com/index.html#top
http://www.acepilots.com/index_old.html

Aces of the Eighth Air Force in World War Two
European Theater, ETO, the U.S. Eighth Air Force
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html

USAAF MTO Aces of WW2
Mediterranean theatre
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mto_aces.html

PTO/CBI Pilots of WWII
Top American aces of the Pacific & CBI:
5th, 13th and 14th Air Force fighter pilots
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_pto_aces.html

U.S. Navy Fighter Pilot Aces of World War Two
http://www.acepilots.com/usn_aces.html

Marine Corps Aces of WWII
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_aces.html

-

All the Best,

George

-

[R Leonard]

George –

And don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against the P-47. My uncle (USMA 42) was a P-47 driver, a 24-year-old Lieut Colonel in command of the 405th FS (371st FG) when he was shot down and killed on 5 January 1945 near Hertlingshausen.

Regards,

Rich

[George Eller]

George –

And don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against the P-47. My uncle (USMA 42) was a P-47 driver, a 24-year-old Lieut Colonel in command of the 405th FS (371st FG) when he was shot down and killed on 5 January 1945 near Hertlingshausen.

Regards,

Rich
-

I am sorry to hear that Rich. Was he shot down by ground fire or enemy fighters?

That reminds me of another USAAF P-47 ace - Lt. Col. Neel Kearby - C.O. 348th Fighter Group - Pacific Theater of Operations. He was the 5th highest scoring USAAF ace in the PTO (and the highest scoring USAAF P-47 ace in the PTO). He was also a Medal of Honor recipient.

Lt. Col. Neel Kearby - C.O. 348th Fighter Group
Giant in a Jug
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_kearby.html

Neel E. Kearby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neel_E._Kearby
Kearby was born in Wichita Falls, Texas and graduated from the University of Texas in 1936. He received flight training at Randolph and Kelly Air Force bases.

Colonel Kearby, commanding officer of the 348th Fighter Group, was the only U.S. fighter pilot to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions while flying the P-47.

By March 1944, Kearby had 22 kills to his credit. On March 5, 1944, Kearby and two other pilots attacked a formation of 15 Japanese aircraft near Wewak. After shooting down one of the aircraft, Kearby himself was shot down. The P-47 crashed into the jungle below, killing Kearby.

-

[R Leonard]

It was an air-to-air action. From a letter to my Grandfather from my uncle's wingman, post-war:

"On our mission that day, January 5th we were on a fighter sweep carrying no bombs. We were led by your son John Leonard and intercepted approximately forty German fighter planes (F.W. 190's and M.E. 109's). They were at about 20,000 feet and off to our right. We were at 16,000. The formation of German planes was called out and your son John told us 'get ready' and turned into the enemy head on, which was the American method in such case. Immediately we were mixing with them. At that time I was hit badly and spun down to 1,000 feet before recovering. Then when I proceeded home alone I could hear over the phone, the voices of the men in my squadron. About one minute later I heard a voice call out 'I've gotten two of them' and then 'I'm hit and going home'. This voice, Colonel, was that of your son as he and I were the only two who were shot down on the mission. I bailed out then before hearing our squadron commander mention that he would have to jump."

According to an affidavit from a witness on the ground, a resident of the village of Hertlingshausen s.w. of Worms: "On the 5th of January, 1945 at about 3:30 p.m. an American Thunderbolt plane in distress, fell into a field near this town and exploded. The pilot bailed out, but the parachute failed to open and he was instantly killed - he had been wounded."

My dad, beyond the sorrow of the loss of his brother, always wondered what happened to his flight jacket. It was the navy G-1 type that my father had worn as a fighter pilot at Coral Sea and Midway and that he gave to his brother in the summer of 1942.

Rich

[George Eller]

It was an air-to-air action. From a letter to my Grandfather from my uncle's wingman, post-war:

"On our mission that day, January 5th we were on a fighter sweep carrying no bombs. We were led by your son John Leonard and intercepted approximately forty German fighter planes (F.W. 190's and M.E. 109's). They were at about 20,000 feet and off to our right. We were at 16,000. The formation of German planes was called out and your son John told us 'get ready' and turned into the enemy head on, which was the American method in such case. Immediately we were mixing with them. At that time I was hit badly and spun down to 1,000 feet before recovering. Then when I proceeded home alone I could hear over the phone, the voices of the men in my squadron. About one minute later I heard a voice call out 'I've gotten two of them' and then 'I'm hit and going home'. This voice, Colonel, was that of your son as he and I were the only two who were shot down on the mission. I bailed out then before hearing our squadron commander mention that he would have to jump."

According to an affidavit from a witness on the ground, a resident of the village of Hertlingshausen s.w. of Worms: "On the 5th of January, 1945 at about 3:30 p.m. an American Thunderbolt plane in distress, fell into a field near this town and exploded. The pilot bailed out, but the parachute failed to open and he was instantly killed - he had been wounded."

My dad, beyond the sorrow of the loss of his brother, always wondered what happened to his flight jacket. It was the navy G-1 type that my father had worn as a fighter pilot at Coral Sea and Midway and that he gave to his brother in the summer of 1942.

Rich
-

Very moving story Rich...



The 9th AF in the E.T.O.
371st Fighter Group
http://www.airwarweb.net/usaaf/9af_371fg.php

371st Fighter Group
405th Fighter Squadron

9th Air Force 1945 Chronicles
http://www.airwarweb.net/usaaf/9af_1945-02.php

FRIDAY, 5 JANUARY 1945
TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force):
The 9th Bombardment Division attacks rail bridges at Ahrweiler, Simmern, and Bullay, Germany and communications centers at Gouvy, Houffalize, and near Durler, Belgium, and Massen, Luxembourg.
Fighters escort the 9th Bombardment Division and VIII Bomber Command, fly armed reconnaissance, attack airfields, communications centers, traffic concentrations, and other targets, and support the US III and VIII Corps W and E of Bastogne and the 2d and 3d Armored Divisions near Manhay, Belgium.
HQ 368th Fighter Group and the 395th, 396th and 397th Fighter Squadrons move from Juvincourt to Metz, France with P-47s.

[redcoat]

-


Although, I would not discount the importance of planes destroyed on the ground. As many planes that were destroyed on the ground were that many less that did not live to fight another day. Looking at gun cam footage of strafing runs on parked planes, it appears fairly difficult while flying at high speed with the added hazard of ground fire directed at your plane. It seems that many planes were missed or only lightly damaged.


-
Another problem with claims of aircraft ground kills is that the Germans started to place non-serviceable aircraft around the airfield as 'bait', so Allied fighter pilots would waste their ammo on these aircraft.
I've seen film of a twin engined aircraft being shot up, and you can quite clearly seen that the aircraft is propped up on a trestle.

[George Eller]

Another problem with claims of aircraft ground kills is that the Germans started to place non-serviceable aircraft around the airfield as 'bait', so Allied fighter pilots would waste their ammo on these aircraft.
I've seen film of a twin engined aircraft being shot up, and you can quite clearly seen that the aircraft is propped up on a trestle.
-

Maybe some were, but I'd be willing to bet that many were not.

-

[redcoat]

-

Maybe some were, but I'd be willing to bet that many were not.

-Indeed, but the problem is.... how many ;)

[George Eller]

Indeed, but the problem is.... how many ;)
-

Fair enough...God only knows :)

-

[STEELTIGAR]

there is'nt any right or wrong answer it all depends on their application;but nothing can beat the sound of amerlin engine at full power.

[Kimura]

there is'nt any right or wrong answer it all depends on their application;but nothing can beat the sound of amerlin engine at full power.


Seems you never heard a Griffon or a DB605.;)

[christophe1992]

the helcat and corsair where carier based and p51 wassent. its like comparing the modern f18 vs the f22

. for speed and high altytudes p51
low ground attack the hellcat and vs fighters at low altytude the corsair i gues