Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Saxman,
>bkbandit: Even P-47 pilots admitted that the F4U was by far the toughest single-engine fighter the Americans produced.
Do you perhaps have the quote ready? That would be quite interesting :-)
However, with regard to reputation, I'm afraid it's not a very accurate representation of reality.
If you look at the US Navy statistics that were prepared just after WW2 based on their total combat experience, the one aircraft type that could really take more flak than any other and still come home was the Douglas SBD.
I don't know whether people who read other books than I did share this impression, but I'd never have thought it was such a tough aircraft based on all those books I had read on WW2 air combat. Sure, one always reads that the pilots were unhappy about the SB2C and liked the SBD much better, but that might have just indicated that the SB2C really had a lot of problems ...
So, it's always better to try and find some data to cross-check the reputation now and then ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Henning, here's the specific quote you are referring to, from page 78 and 79:a) Loss rates to enemy A/A were highest in 1942 and generallv lowest in 1943. increasing slightly from then until the end of the war. The 1942 rates reflect the predominance of large enemy warships among the targets for that year, figures for 1943 and subsequent years the relatively lower but increasing effectiveness of Japanese land A/A. Actually enemy A/A material improved and increased in volume at a far greater rate, but this trend was offset by the improved performance characteristics of Naval aircraft, and improved tictics against A/A.
(b) Loss rates for carrier-based aircraft were consistently higher than for land-based aircraft, despite inclusion in the latter of the relatively vulnerable VPB. The reason is that land-based aircraft generally were assigned to attack the less well-defended rear area targets, already well beaten down by the carrier forces, such as those in the Marshalls and Philippines. Also their campaigns against such heavily defended targets as the Rabaul area were of long duration, and by the later stages enemy A/A guns had been greatly reduced in number and ammunition supplies
depleted. Carrier aircraft, on the other hand, were constantly reaching out toward the most heavily defended targets, pressing their attacks close to wipe out such small and vital targets as grounded aircraft, warships and merchant vessels, and seldom staying long enough to enjoy the benefits of the reduced A/A defenses resulting from their attacks.
(c) The lesser effectiveness of enemy A/A against our land-based planes did not result from an appreciably lower rate of hits per sortie attacking defended targets, but from generally lower lethal effect of hits. A smaller percentage of the land-based planes hit by A/A was lost. In part, also the lower rate of losses for land-based planes reflected the extensive use of the less vulnerable SBD, while the carriers were shifting to the highly vulnerable SB2C.
(d)
The SBD, carrier-based or land-based, had consistently the best record of any plane model. It generally received slightly less hits per sortie than other planes, and in addition had the lowest ratio of losses to hits of any single-engine plane.(e)
The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.(f) The TBM loss rate appears to have been lower than that of the SB2C. It received more hits per sortie, but showed greater ability to survive hits. Both SB2C and TBM were somewhat more subject to A/A loss than fighters.
Loss rates per 100 action sorties, by carrier type:
F6F: .87 CV/CVL .83 CVE
F4U: 1.46 CV/CVL .90 CVE
FM: 0 CV/CVL .48 CVE
SBD: .68 CV/CVL 0 CVE
SB2C: 1.43 CV/CVL 0 CVE
TBM: 1.10 CV/CVL .72 CVE
One should also note that the Navy states that the F6F was a more survivable fighter than the F4U. However, the small, rugged SBD was best at getting its crew home.
This next part is very interesting as well. From page 77:In the case of F6F and F4U losses the bulk of those reported as destroyed by unidentified types, amounting to one-fourth of the total, have been prorated as noted in the footnote to the table. This, plus the errors in identification which may normally be expected in the action reports,
results in a decrease of accuracy which leaves something to be desired, but permits comparisons which are believed sufficiently near the truth to be of considerable value and interest, and are in any event the best available.
The result of comparing each pair of figures is to produce a combat ratio for air combat between each two models or types of planes involved - subject to the limitation on accuracy noted above.
The F6F appears to have shot down 15.5 single-engine Jap fighters for each F6F destroyed in combat with them. Against the Zeke the F6F ratio was over 13-to-1; against Oscar over 15-to-1; against Tojo (probably including a large proportion of misidentifications) over 31-to-1. Against
the most advanced types the F6F did less well: 8.5 to-1 against the Frank, Jack and George combined.
Unusual is the loss of 6 F6Fs in combat with Betty; however, with respect to enemy twin-engine planes as a whole the ratio was 66-to-1, and against all other bomber types combined is 225-to-1.
The F4U nearly matched the F6F performance during this period, with a 15-to-1 ratio against single-engine fighters, and 12-to-1 against Zeke. The F4U, however, included a relatively large number of obsolete Nates among its kills, and while its record against Oscar and Tony was superior to the F6F's, the F4U scored only 13-to-1 against Tojo, and only 6-to-1 against Frank, Jack and George combined.
The phenomenal FM leads all fighters during this period, with a 26-to-1 ratio over Jap single-engine fighters, only 2 losses sustained in destroying 87 Zekes, and only two losses in downing 194 bombers and miscellaneous types.
My regards,
Widewing
