Most Effective WWII American Fighter

[polishshooter]

OK, the Corsair had the RANGE on the Wildcat, I'll give you that much...

Kinda funny that it was thought to be too hot for the Navy pilots to land on carriers at first, so they gave them all to the Gyrenes, and concentrated on the Hellcat....

...but since all Marine Aviators had to be "Carrier Qualified," the Marines were practicing their landings on carriers with the same Corsairs "Too hot for Naval Aviators" DAYS after they got them!

There is a chance if the Navy figured them out quicker, we may not have SEEN the Hellcat in service...


But I STILL think the most underrated plane of the war was the Eastern FM2 Wildcat....with that bigger tail and the bigger engine some pilots say it was BETTER than the F6F....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But I STILL think the most underrated plane of the war was the Eastern FM2 Wildcat....with that bigger tail and the bigger engine some pilots say it was BETTER than the F6F....

Yeah, but you're also the one, Polish, who thinks the P-40 was the epitome of WWII aircraft design, the M4 was an excellent tank, and pistol designs have not improved since the invention of the 1911 Colt. Using that logic then, maybe if we had fielded Jennys or Sopwith Camels in Europe and the Pacific we would have won the war sooner!

P.S., Polish, I hope you finish up that inventory stuff soon. I miss your posts on the forums. I seldom have anyone to argue with.

[polishshooter]

I'll have you know PS, that I NEVER used the word "epitome" in the same sentence as "P-40" or "M-4!" (Prolly in the same sentence with "Browning," "1911," ".45ACP," etc, but NOT "P-40" or "M-4.")

All I said was the P-40 (along with the F4F) won the War against the Japanese AAF and JNAF for us!

(And the M-4 variants did the same thing against Germany!)



And sorry about the wierd hours, I average at least two night inventories a week until May, my schedule (And Sleep schedule!) gets pretty screwed up this time of year. But my BONUS, (i.e., New guns?) depends on good numbers from the inventories, and so far I'm doing pretty well...

[wolfgang2000]

Polish, I know that you have been to Warner Robins, but have you ever been to Aberdeen Proving grounds? It houses the US Army small arms museum. It has a large collection of US Armor down the main road, and behind the the museum there is about 5 acres of WWII enemy armor and artillery.

At least it did in the early 70's

[polishshooter]

No, I haven't been there yet. Believe it or not, I haven't been to Ft. Knox yet either, even though I've driven by the exit amillion times off of 65. I WILL make it there this summer, I PROMISE.

I used to spend time in Macon with my last job, so I got to see Warner Robbins quite a bit. I used to detour just to look at the flight line, C5As and C-17s all lined up are pretty impressive!

Pensacola impressed me too! I LOVED seeing those prewar paint jobs on the Wildcats and others on display! Kinda like the P-26s and P-12s at Wright Pat....

[Pistolenschutze]

So far, I've not been able to make it to either Warner Robins or Wright Patterson. I did manage to take in the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian a few years ago. Well worth the effort, I might add.

[wolfgang2000]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

I did manage to take in the Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian a few years ago. Well worth the effort, I might add.

Pistol you're right. The Air and Space Museum is well worth the effort. After the fall of the USSR Warner Robins added a lot of Soviet planes. It's a neat place.

[17thfabn]

In raw numbers the P-47 is the best! Fastest propeller driven production fighter of WW II at 460 m.p.h. (N model) Heaviest armed with 8 .50 machine guns and up to 2,500 lbs. of bombs or 10 rockets.

[polishshooter]

Hey 17th! Good to hear from you again!

Yeah, I love that old Jug too, that and the Lightning were probably the best examples of a "quintissential" AMERICAN WWII fighter design, besides any of the NAVY ones....to be considered, it had to have either a BIG ASS radial, or (an) Allison(s)...

The P-51 was GREAT, but not as a truly "American" design, for that we needed a little British (Rolls Royce) help...


And back to the P-38, did ANYONE have a successful twin engine fighter in WWII besides the US? As a FIGHTER? And the P61 just may have been the BEST "fighter" of the WAR too...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And back to the P-38, did ANYONE have a successful twin engine fighter in WWII besides the US? As a FIGHTER?

If memory serves me, Polish, the Germans developed the Me-110 as a fighter, though it was never very successful against allied opposition. If I recall correctly, the Germans used it with some success as a night fighter.

I too like the P-47, Polish, though I think its really significant place was its use as a ground attack aircraft later in the war. Eight .50 machine guns would ruin anyone's day! From the accounts I've read, the only thing the pilots didn't like about the -47 was that it was a tail dragger, and a real pain in the butt to steer down the runway.

[Bernie109]

The last ones to be retired would indicate which ones were the best.
The F-4U Corsair and the F-51 Mustang were the WW2 fighters brought out of storage for Korea. All of the others were scrapped. Actually, the F-47 was preferred for Korea because the Mustang had a weakness when used in ground attack. The Liquid cooled engine allowed for a cheap kill by a single rifle bullet piercing the cooling system. Unfortunately, most P-47's (Later redesignated F-47) were scrapped when WW2 ended. Enitre squadrons of P-47's were scrapped in Germany rather than shipping them Sate side. This left too few of them to bring out of mothballs for Korea.

The Hellcat was nowhere near as good as the Corsair. The Hellcat prevailed in WW2 because the Corsair was not trusted for Carrier operations due to its long nose. The Bearcat was supposed to be the first fighter that could outfly the Zero. In order to achieve this, only one underbelly hardpoint was installed and it only had four .50's. While an excellant air to air combat fighter, it was virtually useless for ground attack and "Was not invited" to Korea.

[Bernie109]

If memory serves me, Polish, the Germans developed the Me-110 as a fighter, though it was never very successful against allied opposition.(Quote)

Back then, Bomers wee supposed to be self sufficient, defending themselves with their own armament. When it became apparent that this was not sufficient, the concept of the escort fighter was born. What an escort fighter should be was down to two concepts;

a) Patterned after a bomber allowinf for increased range (ME-110)
b) A single engine fighter packed with more fuel. (P-51)

The ME-110 proved to be just another target for the enemies fighters. The Germans were forced to press the ME-109 to do something it was never designed to do, long range bomber escort.

On the Allied side, fitting B-17's with more guns and using them as escort fighters was tried and failed as miserably as the ME-110. The P-47 was the first success in long range fighter escort but it was the P-51 that was able to provide complete escort coverage all the way to Berlin. By adding another fuel tank behind the cockpit, the P-51's were able to stay aloft for almost 12hours. This was done in the Pacific. The weakness of a single engine, single seat long range fighter became apparent when P-51 pilots flying for 8, 10, and even 12 hours had to be carried out of their cockpits from exhaustion.

[Bernie109]

The P-38 was the only American fighter that could hold its own against both German and Japanese fighters when the war first began. The P-47 was the next fighter that came on line able to compete. The P-38 continued to serve in Italy and the Pacific until the end of the war but once the war was over, only the Mustang and the Corsair were good enough to remain in service in the early jet age.

[polishshooter]

The P40 and the F4F not only held their own against the Japs, they were the two planes that had the most effect on DEFEATING them.

Over the course of the war, for ANY Japanese Ace that was killed in air to air combat, the odds are overwhelmingly that (1) he was probably killed over New Guinea or the Solomons in 1942, or not later than early 1943 and (2) he was killed by a "typical" US fighter pilot (NOT an ace) flying EITHER a P-40 or a Wildcat. (MAYBE a P38, and even some by P39s, but definitely before June of 1943.)


Both the Japanese Army AF and the JNAF were TOTALLY destroyed as effective fighting forces by early 1943, long before the Hellcat, Corsair, P47, P51, or P61 ever made it to the theater. And that killing was done out of Cactus and out of Australia/New Guinea.

I KNOW somebody is going to interject about Midway, and the 4 carrier air groups lost, but that was NOT the BULK of the JNAF...the JNAF was alive and well after midway, but mostly DEAD 6 months later....

The Wildcat and P40 also did well in 1942 off Africa, against Dewoitines and Fiats and Machiis, and the P40 did well against the BF109 in the Eastern Sahara, and later as late as 1944. The secret was altitude...MOST fighting in the Mediteranean was under 20-22000, like it was in the Pacific, where the Allison and weak single stage tubochargers of the early Grummans SHINED. So did the P38 for that matter, they all only became dogs when over 25-30000, where most of the fighting over Germany and France took place...

Seeing Wildcats in DDay stripes was a neat sight too, even though I didn't see the first picture of one until relatively recently...more of them were flying CAP over Normandy than most people realize.

And both F4F and FM-2 Wildcat served to the end of the war off the CVEs, as CAP over every assault and gun line, besides close support, and shot down MANY Kamikazes and incoming Japs right until the end....


And one of the last strikes of the Fleet Air Arm in 1945 saw 8 FM-2 Wildcats made by Eastern (GM) that tangled with a squadron of BF-109s over Norway....and soundly defeated them. Yeah, it might have been against "Turkeys," but it is one of those questions...the F6F "on paper" was a match for the FW190, and better than the BF109.....IF the FM-2 Wildcat WAS a better dogfighter than the F6F, what WOULD have happened if there was more involvement of Fleet Carriers in Europe, earlier?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Both the Japanese Army AF and the JNAF were TOTALLY destroyed as effective fighting forces by early 1943 . . .

Gee, Polish, I guess all those Kamikazes off Okinawa in 1945 must have been either, A), not part of the Japanese airforces (maybe they were really frustrated German Luftwaffe pilots with a taste for slumming), or B), figments of all those carrier pilots' and fleet gunners' imaginations.

[polishshooter]

As old Ronnie Reagan would say..."Well, there you go again!" PROVING my point FOR me.

The Kamikazes as a RULE were fledgling pilots with barely enough flight time to GET OFF THE GROUND, much less do ANYTHING but crash into ships, and as it was, they were not very good at picking the ships they hit, OR hitting the ships they picked! And the few (granted very few) who aborted during each mission, (USUALLY because they got lost, but there WERE some "cold feet" too... ) had a HECKUVA time getting back, and USUALLY crashed trying to land!!!

The VERY FEW actual "fighter pilots" they had left, outside of the FEW trying usually futilely to intercept the B-29s in the Home Islands, excepting those very few who decided to go out gloriusly, were employed until the end of the war in the usually futile attempt to ESCORT (actually NAVIGATE for them or they'd get LOST) the kamikazes to their targets! And the FEW trained bomber pilots were used to scout, and navigate for them, or to carry and launch the Ohkas! THE JAF and JNAF CEASED TO EXIST AS EFFECTIVE FIGHTING AIR FORCES AFTER THE SOLOMONS/NEW GUINEA CAMPAIGN!! REPEAT that 100 times or until that is etched in your mind, PS!!! IT's an undeniable fact of WWII....

The Kamikaze arguably WAS an "effective" weapon (the first EFFECTIVE guided missiles?) but was only even contemplated BECAUSE the Japanese KNEW their air force and Naval air forces were "Combat Ineffective!" And it was the ONLY way they could score ANY appreciable damage on the American Fleets! The American CAP and AA fire with the radar control and proximity fuses, made any CONVENTIONAL attack by the ill-trained replacement Torpedo and bomber pilots of both services suicide ANYWAY. That PROVES my point!!!

At this stage of the war, about the ONLY CONVENTIONAL hits the Japs had scored on ANY US ships in about 6 MONTHS were the two bomb hits the lone Judy that was undetected planted on the Princeton that sunk her!

And it really isn't that hard to explain either, all kidding aside. In 1939, the AVERAGE Japanese Naval pilot, for example, had over 1500 flight hours, MANY of them in combat over China. which is what made them so good even with their "paper kites."

But by 1943 the AVERAGE Japanese Naval Aviator in combat had less than 250-275 hrs...by '44 it was closer to 200, which is usually what OUR pilots got in Primary and Secondary BEFORE they got to their issued planes!

If you consider that the Japanese NEVER rotated their experienced pilots, they were in until wounded or killed, THEN you look at the stats and see EVERY available experienced aviator, BOTH Naval and AF, WAS sent to the Rabaul, and THEN lookl at the loss rates, it makes sense!

Now GRANTED it was not ONLY the P-40s and F4Fs that caused it, "Operational Accidents" took a toll on BOTH sides, more than combat! It was a LONELY 600 mile flight ONE WAY from Cactus back to Rabaul over water and/or uncharted Jungle with NO radios in the Jap planes in most intances, NO navigational aids, strange weather patterns, with virtually NO forecasting, and NO Japanese A/S search activity for lost pilots EVER. And that is if you WEREN'T damaged or wounded over Henderson!

It was tough enough for OUR pilots, but they didn't have that long flight BACK after the fight!

And it was the SAME if not WORSE over New Guinea!







The whole concept of the Kamikazes would make another good discussion too, BTW...especially comparing them to the "Homicide Bombers" of today....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

The Kamikazes as a RULE were fledgling pilots with barely enough flight time to GET OFF THE GROUND, much less do ANYTHING but crash into ships, and as it was, they were not very good at picking the ships they hit, OR hitting the ships they picked! And the few (granted very few) who aborted during each mission, (USUALLY because they got lost, but there WERE some "cold feet" too... ) had a HECKUVA time getting back, and USUALLY crashed trying to land!!!

I know they were, Polish. My point being (other than to rib you, one of my small pleasures in life ) was that the not-so-smart-bombs WERE part of the Japanese airforces, and thus your original statement that the Japanese airforces were destroyed by 1943 was sheer hyperbole. Moreover, I think it is highly questionable that all Nip air power, i.e, the trained pilots flying capable aircraft, was destroyed. What they had left they were hording for the coming U.S. invasion of the Home Islands. Indeed, new aircraft designs, quite good ones, were already coming off the assembly line when the war ended in two mushroom clouds.

Your basic points are well taken, however. The Kamikaze could have been a relatively effective weapon, many historians believe, had the Japanese not committed them piecemeal, though whatever they did with them would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the war. As you point out, over the course of the war, the Japanese made the same basic mistake the Germans did, i.e., they left their successful pilots in combat until they were either killed or the war ended. In addition, they did not concentrate heavily on training new pilots as the loses mounted. Very, very few of Japan's highly-trained prewar pilots survived the war, Saburo Saki being the notable exception. Arrogance was perhaps the most clearly definable flaw in the Japanese wartime character. They saw no compelling need to train new pilots or develop new tactics because Japan simply could NOT be defeated.

[polishshooter]

The key word in my argument PS, that does NOT make it "sheer hyperbole" is "EFFECTIVE." I stand by it, the Japanese Air Forces, both Army and Navy, were "Combat Ineffective" after 1943! That does NOT mean they were still not DANGEROUS. They just were incapable of doing any effeective damage to our forces by conventional means, much LESS replicate their successes of 1941 and early 1942!

And it is funny you mention Saburp Sakai...he is the quintessential exhibit "A" of my PREMISE.

Already one of their top aces, he was sent to Rabaul when Japan STRIPPED the rest of their carrier air groups left after Midway, and sent them all to Rabaul to salvage the situation.

(An aside...it is AMAZING how many people versant in WWII in thePacific on THIS side STILL think the SW Pacific as a "sideshow," or an "backwater." The JAPS knew it was the most important theater of the entire war for THEM, if they lost it, it was over, which is why it is even MORE amazing they threw in just about EVERYTHING they had, strippingarmy air and army units from China, and the home islandsand pulling all the REST of their trained carrier air groups from ALL of their remaining carriers, but we beat them back literally on a shoestring budget....)

Anyway, what happened to Sakai? Sent to Rabaul, on a mission to Henderson gets jumped by some wildcats, gets shot up badly, and is BADLY wounded, doesn't REMEMBER the 600 mile flight back to Rabaul, is alreay listed as KIA by the Japs, and crashes on landing, and he's out of the war for a year...he was a LUCKY one...MOST of the best of the Carrier groups DIDN'T come back.

Anyway, does the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" ring a bell? Two of their best Carrier groups lost at Midway, almost FOUR (about ALL of the rest!)completely lost over New Guinea/, most at the Philippine Sea had JUST QUALIFIED for carrier landings, less than 250 hours total, hence, "Turkeys!"

Yes, the Jack (on paper) was the equal of the Hellcat. BUT even IF they could have made the heavier engine work (they NEVER could get them to hold together, which is ONE of the reasons ALL their planes were so light and flimsy, they NEVER had a successful aircraft engine over 1000hp...while our radials on our new fighters by 1944 were all 2000hp...and even the Wildcats and P-40s were 1200 or more....) they would NOT have had ANY experienced pilots to fly them...

And one OTHER thing that made them "combat ineffective...." was the shortage of MECHANICS....the Japanese, NEVER had a surplus of them anyway, (REAL warriors FOUGHT, not turned wrenches...) but every time an island or and airbase got taken, bypassed, or "neutralized," SOME pilots made it out, but ALL mechanics were lost for the war....we were constantly AMAZED whenever we took an airfield, the number of "inoperable" japanese planes with "Minor" problems....a "new" plane with a bad carburator, a "shot up plane parke right NEXT to it with a perfectly good carburator, and NO apparent attempt to "scavenge" parts, BOTH were "down," "waiting for parts," which never came, which probably were on the bottom care of the US Subs or Army B-24s or navy PB4Ys! But NO mechanics left to fix them EITHER didn't help! ANd all through the war, BOTH sides lost more planes and pilots "operationally" (accidents, lost, malfunctions) than to combat, but the Japanese more than us by far....


No, The SWP area was where the war actually was won, (or lost by the Japs...) And they KNEW it, but couldn't ADMIT it....

[Pistolenschutze]

I was reading just recently Polish, that the Navy actually considered the F4U Corsair to be a better aircraft (which I think it was, overall), but it was not based on carriers until 1945, only on land, and mostly in Marine units. Apparently, it was not a very forgiving aircraft and rather difficult to land on carriers safely. What prompted the Navy to finally use it for carrier operations, despite its unforgiving nature, was the need to intercept Kamikazes off Okinawa. According to the stats, the Hellcat killed more Zeros during the war in terms of total numbers, but the kill ratio was actually higher with the F4U. Wispering Death, the Japs called it. Actually, the Hellcat was originally designed specifically to take on the highly maneuverable Zero, and at that task it was a fine aircraft. The F4U, however, seems to have been more effective in the ground attack role than the Hellcat.

[polishshooter]

Yeah, and the Marines got the F4U into action late in the Solomons too, and got in on some LATE action against the few good Japanese pilots left in theater....

And you got that right, the Hellcat was MUCH easier to land on carriers, while the long nose and gull winged Corsair was tough to land, and after the first couple of crack ups and death, the Navy declared it unsafe for carrier use and designated it to the Marines, which MAY have been a blessing...for Marines were MUCH better at ground attack than the Navy OR the Army ever was, so brought out the best of the design for that...


BUT the ONLY problem was all Marine pilots, by regulation, HAD to be "Carrier Qualified," so the FUNNY thing is the plane the NAVY actually declared too unsafe for carrier operations for NAVY pilots continued to land on carriers to qualify MARINE pilots, and they actually figured out how to do it safely!

Which led to the Navy reconsidering, when like you said they ran into the Kamikazes, and they upped the fighters each carrier carried by pitching the SB2Cs, and there wasn't enough Hellcats to go around!

And also led to the FAA adopting it as THEIR main carrier fighter of the pacific, although several RN carriers continued to fly WIldcats until the end.

The DISGRACE was immediately after the war, when the RN offered to "give back" their F4Us instead of having to actually "pay for" them,sicne they had started to produce enough 'Sea Furies," some bright soul in the USN told them no, but to "pitch them," which they did, over the side in the Indian Ocean!

Five years later we were SCROUNGING to get enough Corsairs into the AIR over Korea!




And not to kick a dead horse, (MOI? )but it is also amazing how many Kamikazes AND escorts were knocked down by both F4F and FM-2 Wildcats from the "Taffies" until the end of the war. In fact, the last couple of USN "Ace-in-a-Day" (first 5 kills in the same day) pilots were actually flying WILDCATS, not Hellcats or Corsairs, in 1944 and 45.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Five years later we were SCROUNGING to get enough Corsairs into the AIR over Korea!

Sad but true, Polish! They forgot that ground-attack capable aircraft might just come in handy at some point, and the Corsair was spectacular at that activity. Right after WWII the government was actually considering the total elimination of carriers as a naval class of ships. "Everybody" knew that the next war would be nuclear, so why bother with carriers or ground-attack aircraft?

[JohnGerald]

Here's a couple of thoughts from a newbie here who is a WW II history buff and who grew up on Long Island not too far from Mitchell Field, as it was called back in the day. I remember clearly having the neighborhood buzzed by both bombers and fighters on a regular basis. Now retired in Northern Michigan near Camp Grayling, we get to see F 16s and A 10s train on Range 40. As yet more unfocused rambling, no one complained about the planes in WW II, but now? Too many do.

But on point, I believe that as a machine, the Mustang had the overall best performance of any WW II fighter, but to assess combat performance, one must necessarily add the pilot factor: a good pilot made an average fighter excellent and a poor pilot often got shot down nomatter what he flew.

[Pistolenschutze]

Welcome to TFF, John! Drag up a rock and enjoy the forums. It's always a great day when another history buff joins us!

Originally Posted by JohnGerald

But on point, I believe that as a machine, the Mustang had the overall best performance of any WW II fighter, but to assess combat performance, one must necessarily add the pilot factor: a good pilot made an average fighter excellent and a poor pilot often got shot down nomatter what he flew.

You make a very valid point, John, and I think your assessment is correct on an overall design basis. The Mustang was a truly OUTSTANDING fighter once they mounted the British Rolls engine on it and got rid of that underpowered Allison, and also redesigned the prop. It is my belief that the Mustang would have had the top air-to-air kill score by far had it entered general service earlier in the war. Your point on pilots is even more salient. One of our greatest strengths, I think--almost a "secret weapon"--was that we did not leave our pilots in combat until they either died or the war ended, as did both the Germans and the Japanese. Instead, they were pulled out after a set number of missions and returned Stateside to train other pilots and to impart their experiences in combat to the designers of new aircraft. That experience and expertise were far more valuable to the overall war effort than a few more kills would have been.

[Marlin T]

All of you all need to chech out this site, then break out your checkbooks!!!

Enjoy the dream.

http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/inventory%20table.htm

[Pistolenschutze]

Sure, Marlin, I'll just whip out my checkbook! Hmmm, that Skyraider does seem rather interesting though. Those were designed for use in WWII, but arrived on the scene too late to be used in that conflict. In Vietnam, however, they were used extensively, and quite successfully, for many ground support missions. They could carry a WHALE of a lot of ordinance and they were slow enough to put that ordinance right on target, which was not always true of the "fast movers."