Originally posted by Oldman731
This is a frequently raised notion, which I don't buy. No question but that it takes special skill to land (or crash, depending on POV) on a carrier, as well as to navigate to and from one. But I think these skills are separate from ACM proficiency.
No way to tell, really. PTO was probably the only place with a lot of side-by-side Navy and Air Corps people, and there were many variables that would throw off any useful comparison.
- oldman
Remember, I said "best trained" and didn't refer to ACM skills. However, the best trained usually have the better ACM skills as well. Far more than the USAAF did, the Navy trained for aerial combat as much as anything else. The only formal combat training in the ETO was the 8th AF's Clobber College set up to introduce incoming P-51 pilots to basic aerial combat, beyond the extremely basic training they received stateside. P-47 and P-38 pilots learned from their combat experienced peers during shakedown flights. Not exactly Top Gun quality.
On the other hand, the Navy saw fit to organize a formal aerial combat training program. The results were seen throughout the Pacific.
Let's look at the Navy's Ace of Aces, David McCampbell. His combat tour lasted 6 months, little more than a quarter of the time Bong was on combat duty. During those six months, he shot down 34 Japanese aircraft, is credited with another 7 probably shot down and an even dozen damaged. He is also credited (via gun camera film) of destroying another 21 on the ground. He was the only American pilot to shoot down 5 or more on two occasions. He holds the absolute Allied record of 9 kills, 2 probables and 3 damaged during a single sortie. His two wingmen claimed another 10 kills, one probable and 4 damaged. So, three pilots shoot down 19 confirmed, probably 21 enemy fighters (17 Zeros, 4 Oscars) plus another 7 damaged. In exchange the Japanese couldn't even claim to have hit any of the three Hellcats. McCampbell, Rushing and Slack had attacked 42 Japanese fighters. Japanese records show that only 18 returned to base. This indicates that 24 of the fighters were shot down, or failed to return to base (likely those being among the probables and damaged, or maybe mechanical failure or simply getting lost). Nonetheless, the Japanese claimed to have been attacked by "many enemy fighters" and claimed 12 kills. Of course they were not likely to admit that they fought just 3 Hellcats and hadn't even scored a single hit in return.
This little brawl is an excellent example of training, tactics and equipment. For the Americans it showed what training, teamwork and good aircraft can do. For the Japanese, it showed what will befall poor training, abismal tactics and second rate aircraft.
So, in just six months of deployment, McCampbell destroyed 55 Japanese aircraft in the air and on the ground. Add to that 7 probables and 12 damaged. His combat record is without peer in the American WWII fighter pilot community. I think he earned his CMoH.
His squadron, VF-15 destroyed 313 enemy aircraft in the air, another 314 on the ground, and produced 26 aces. All three were records never broken by any other Navy or Marine squadron. And, remember, they did this during a 6 month deployment, 6 weeks of which was spent in transit outside the combat zone or at anchor. Losses were 21 to all causes, the bulk of which were to ground fire and accidents. Only 7 are believed to be related to air combat, although some studies have reduced this to 5. At worst, it's a 45/1 kill ratio. At best, it jumps up to 63/1. Can any other combat unit, flying for any nation claim a kill ratio that high for a combat tour? Maybe some units in the Luftwaffe were that successful against Poland, or against the Soviets in the summer of 1941. Maybe Japan could post similar numbers against the Chinese I-15 biplanes in the late 1930s. Lot of maybes....
My regards,
Widewing
