Ensign Eliminator

[F4UDOA]

Just some stats on the "Ensign Eliminator" on the total losses and sorties from Feb. 1942 through wars end.

Total Sorties=64,051
Total losses due to

Air to Air=   189
Anti Aircraft=349
Other causes= 230
Non operational flights= 692
Crashes on landing ground and carrier=164

Total losses WW2=1,624

By comparison.

P-47

Total losses 5,222.

Granted the P-47 saw more combat due to it's use in both theaters but the fact remains over three times as many P-47's were lost during WW2 than F4U's and it is reputed as being the safest fighter in WW2. So much for reputations.

Source 'America's Hundred Thousand"

Here is a list of kills achieved by A/C type in the Pacific theater of operations by fighter type.

F6F = 5,156
F4U = 2,140
P-38= 1,700
F4F = 1,006
P-40= 706
P-47= 697
P-51= 296
P-39= 243
P-61= 63

[mx22]

F4UDOA,

You give an answer yourself - you can safely bet that P-47s flew much more the 64,000 sorties. The only way to compare them, would be to calculate the loss/sortie ratio for both planes.

mx22

[Lephturn]

Don't forget that the P-47 was used extensively as an attack bird in the ETO after D-day.  I would wager that a LARGE number of those losses were due to ground fire of some sort while doing Jabo or strafing runs.  It was precisely for it's toughness and suitability to the task that so many 47 sorties were flown.  At least give a figure for how many operational sorties were flown by P47's if you want to make a valid comparison.  If 47's flew 5 times as many sorties that "three times as many losses" figure will turn the other way.

Granted, the F4U was also a tough bird, but it was never put to the dangerous ground-attack role to the extent that the P47 was.  The ground attack roll was a very dangerous one, and for this reason I would expect the number of losses for any plane tasked with that role to be greater than a plane tasked for escort or sweep, at least in terms of number of sorties.

IMHO, the "ensign eliminator" title had it's roots in the rigors of operating a very high-torque airplane from a carrier combined with inexperience pilots.  I wouldn't say that the Hog was "unsafe" by any means, that's not how it earned the nickname.  Even so I don't think the numbers you quoted support your argument, even if I do think your overall point is right.  

Interesting to see the numbers though.  Any chance we can see that kind of a breakdown for the P47 (my favorite as you know) and some of the others?

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
 
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[F4UDOA]

Lephturn,

I wish I had that data for all A/C.

In AHT it breaks down the F4U's total losses to all causes. It just gives total losses for the P-47. Although it does break down the P-47 kill totals more specifically ie. trains ships and aircraft. It also say's of the 5,222 P-47's lost .7 were due to combat.
Being the mathematical genius that I am, I can't seem to figure out where to put the decimal in this little problem. All kidding aside I think this means 365 P-47's lost in air to air combat, Quite good. In fact since it was credited with a total of 3,572 air to air victories it would have a K/D of 9.78 to 1. Just like Aces High huh  

Also in a back issue of Air Power magazine (edited by Walter Boyne) it states that the F6F kill total includes A/C killed on the ground. I have been trying to confirm this elsewhere. I was hoping that Widewing's connection to Corky Myer (Chief Grumman test pilot on F6F) could help me confirm that.

I'll keep trying to find similar info and post it.

Keep in mind that when Corsairs where brought on Flattops in large numbers the Marine pilots did not have the 6 months carrier qualification that Navy pilots did. They were thrown to the Wolves more or less to learn on there own. Losses could have been considerable less if the same training had been afforded Marine pilots as Navy F6F pilots.

[bolillo_loco]

(this is not a not a flame on the corsair by no means)the major reason for the corsairs success vs P-47 is that the USMC used the corsair for the most part. the navy only took interest in it after they tossed it to the bone yard and gave them to the marines, and the marines started to chew up everything in sight like marines do. so it is simple

P-47 army pilot
F4U marine pilot

thats why the corsair stacked up such a record. had it been

P-47 marine pilot
F4U army pilot

then it would have been the exact opposite of the above.

[F4UDOA]

Agreed!!

Although the Jug had a pretty good record too.

[AKDejaVu]

On a drive to California with my Grandfather, we talked quite a bit a bout WW2.  He was on an artillery team.

He had two friends that were P-47 pilots.  He corresponded with them until they died.  One of them used to write that there was no greater pleasure than straffing a train.  Evidently, he died happy.

He also had a story that made me laugh.  Two P-47's were flying around.  One came in above the tree tops and flew around until the German anti-air could resist no longer.  He saw a burst of fire from the forest directed towards the low P-47.  He figures it was about 4 seconds before the second P-47 put his bombs right on target.

AKDejaVu

[Fishu]

And how about landing/take-off accidents with p47 / sortie compares to F4u?

[brady]

 A buddy of mine is reading a book on JG 52, He was telling me that they had more lost planes do to accidents than combat, and the same goes for pilot loss, more as a result of pilot error than combat, I think maybe based on reading I have done on other units and Nationalities that for the Most part this would be true for all, planes and nations.

Brady

------------------
 

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Widewing]

F4UDOA discusses losses and kills, to which I reply:

Operational combat losses for the F4U were 1.2%.
Operational combat losses for the P-47 were 0.7%. This is based upon approximately 747,000 P-47 sorties.

Decimals are rounded up to the nearest 0.1%

I read where of 550 bulldozers deployed in the Pacific, 7 were destroyed by enemy action. That calculates to a loss percentage of 1.3%. So, a Sea Bee is more likely to have his bulldozer destroyed than a fighter pilot his Corsair or Thunderbolt. I guess that says something about the F4U and P-47. :-)

My regards,

Widewing

[eddiek]

Ok, I went digging, and here is a bit of Jug service info I found.  Will post the links when I can.

Total Jug losses: 5222 (1723 were noncombat accidents)

Over half a million sorties (Widewing said 747,000, more specific than my source)

0.7% losses per mission

Jug's aerial k/d ratio:  4.6:1

European theater alone, over 7000 planes destroyed, more than 50% of those in air to air combat

From June 8, 1944 to May 7, 1945 (D-Day+4 til the end of the war in Europe), it destroyed:
86,000 railway cars
9,000 locomotives
6,000 armored fighting vehicles
68,000 trucks
Seems these might be the figures for Europe alone, but not sure.

Was reading another site regarding the Tiffy and Jug being used in the ground attack role, specifically against tanks.
What made my eyes light up was a reference to the Jug's AP ammo punching through the German tanks exhausts and into the crew compartment and killing the tank and crew.  Was also a note about the Jug pilots "riccocheting" their rounds off the road and into the soft belly armor, thus knocking the tanks out that way.
Will post the links when I am more awake...

[Jekyll]

 

Was also a note about the Jug pilots "riccocheting" their rounds off the road and into the soft belly armor, thus knocking the tanks out that way.

Oh God not this again.  Think about the physics a bit guys.  Remember 'the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection'?

It is simply not possible for a ricocheting round to strike and penetrate the belly armour of a tank.




------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Jekyll:
Oh God not this again.  Think about the physics a bit guys.  Remember 'the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection'?

It is simply not possible for a ricocheting round to strike and penetrate the belly armour of a tank.

Must be quite solid road  
Some slightly muddy road and plop plop plop.. bullets sunks into the road
(not to talk about off-road...)

[Jekyll]

Hehe fishu, it has to be more than just solid.  The road actually has to be substantially stronger than the armour on the tank.

Now, you reckon that something that solid would be likely to deform the AP shells?  What does THAT do to their power to penetrate armour?

It's a fiction, pure and simple.

------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps

[Pongo]

The US forces used bulldozers in combat in the pacific I believe. So your stat while interesting is not as supprising as all that.
Only nations that had large % of their AC not in combat would have loss % in wartime that mirror the US experiance.