Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BUG_EAF322 on April 26, 2004, 01:59:14 PM
-
It was the Dutch submarine K XVI who sunk a japanese warship 24 december 1941.
the next day it was sunk by a japanese torpedo.
i don't know what japanese class of ship it was.
-
A U.S. destroyer sank a Jap midget sub during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
-
Originally posted by ra
A U.S. destroyer sank a Jap midget sub during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The USS Ward sank a Japanese midget submarine in 1200 feet of water south of Pearl harbor before dawn on december 7.
One of her 5 inch shells pierced the base of the conning tower.
-
That 4 inch gun mount is now on the mall of Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. The Ward's crew were Naval Reserve who had been activated from Minnesota.
The American F4F's and shore batteries defending Wake Island accounted for a light cruiser and two destroyers of the invasion force during December as well, I recall. Those successes heartened the entire country.
-
rgr that I am in Minnesota. Did you know the P51C Redtail is based here as well?
-
The DUtch Faught Excedingly well and with great Honor in the opening stages of the War In the Pacific, their subs did quiet well. Doorman and the DeReoiter (sp?) Preformend admarably with great honor when In comand of the Joint Naval forces ABDA in their efforts to stop the Japanese Invashion forces in the the Dutch East indies.
(http://www.myphotodrive.com//uploads/649_Newsweek 42.bmp)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
It was the Dutch submarine K XVI who sunk a japanese warship 24 december 1941.
the next day it was sunk by a japanese torpedo.
i don't know what japanese class of ship it was.
first or not, here this the details of this encounter...
From The Submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy (http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/index.htm)
24 Dec 1941: K XVI attacks and sinks (two torpedoes hit) the Japanese Fubuki class destroyer Sagiri (1950t or 2090t). Position: 0134'N-11021'E, 30nm north off Kuching (Borneo). Sagiri's own torpedoes catch fire and blow up the ship, 121 man are lost. The Japanese Shirakumo and Minesweeper No. 3 rescue 120 survivors.
...
25 Dec 1941 at about 11:45 (Japanese Standard Time): The Japanese submarine I 66 torpedoes the K XVI and all hands (36) are lost. Position is 230'N-10950'E, 60 nm north west of Kuching (Borneo). Some source report 01N-110E as the position, which seems incorrect since this position is on land and 40 nm from the nearest coast.
60 miles NW of Kuching and only 50 ! meters off I 66's starboard bow the submerged I 66 spots K XVI. Cdr Yo****omi starts an approach and 13 minutes later he fires a single torpedo that sinks the K XVI. The I 66 is the first IJN submarine to sink a submarine. In the battle report Cdr Yo****omi writes: "the enemy sub was quite large".
Details of the Fubuki class destroyer Sagiri and Submarine I-66 can be found here:
Nihon Kaigun (http://www.combinedfleet.com/)
... geez, the name of the commander of the submarine is partly sensored because of possible usage of the word to describe poo!
-
LOL
nasty commanders they must have been
thanks for info :)
-
A submarine, midget or not, is by definition not a warship. It's a boat. JFYI
-
The P-51C is based in St. Paul, is that at Holman Field? I know some of the Ghost Squadron birds are based down at South St. Paul, including the B-25 "Miss Mitchell".
BTW I saw the highest scoring member of the Tuskegee Flyers being interviewed at the August air show at Holman a few years back. Awesome to see history walking around like that.
-
The P-51C is based in St. Paul, is that at Holman Field? I know some of the Ghost Squadron birds are based down at South St. Paul, including the B-25 "Miss Mitchell".
BTW I saw the highest scoring member of the Tuskegee Flyers being interviewed at the August air show at Holman a few years back. Awesome to see history walking around like that.
oops :)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
It was the Dutch submarine K XVI who sunk a japanese warship 24 december 1941.
The Chinese must have managed to sink a Japanese ship or two in the years leading up to 1941.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
The P-51C is based in St. Paul, is that at Holman Field? I know some of the Ghost Squadron birds are based down at South St. Paul, including the B-25 "Miss Mitchell".
BTW I saw the highest scoring member of the Tuskegee Flyers being interviewed at the August air show at Holman a few years back. Awesome to see history walking around like that.
I was lucky enough to meet Lt Col Charles McGee in jan 1998 back in MA. His hosts werent available, so I had him for three hours before his presentation, we talked about the online sim and he was amazed that there are people flying around in these aircraft. he was even more humbled when there are thousands of guys that consider him and other airmen heroes. "I was just doing what I was trained to do" was his remark to that. I just sat there and listened to so many of his stories. In Aug 2000 when I moved here, I ran into him again at the airshow in St Paul, he remembered me and we spoke again, for much less time than before.
75 years old, and still sharp as a razor.
-
Three days after Pearl Harbor attack, with the defenses of the Philippines crumbling all around, Capt. Colin Kelly of USAAF, took surviving B-17 "Flying Fortress" from Clark Field on a mission to bomb an aircraft carrier reported off Luzon, but did not find IJN Carrier and decide bombed at Battleship Haruna, but that what they thought they sunk Battleship Haruna. After sunk the Japanese vessel, Capt. Kelly B-17 were shot up badly damage and he told his crews to bailed out, but Capt. Kelly did not bailed out and was killed in the ensuing crash.
He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for sinking the vessel and was probably was killed by Legend Saburo Sakai who was one of the Zero to shot down B-17. So, Capt. Kelly immediately became America's first air war hero during after 3 days of Pearl Harbor attack.
Rafe
-
If the midget sub doesn't do it for you - the Japanese Fleet Sub I-70 was sunk North of Hawaii on December 10, 1941 by aircraft from the carrier U.S.S. ENTERPRISE CV-6.
-
Originally posted by Jester
If the midget sub doesn't do it for you - the Japanese Fleet Sub I-70 was sunk North of Hawaii on December 10, 1941 by aircraft from the carrier U.S.S. ENTERPRISE CV-6.
my my... we would be playing with words now... this depends on whether you can call a submarine a warship (at least that is what this thread is for). Sooo...
Originally posted by GScholz
A submarine, midget or not, is by definition not a warship. It's a boat. JFYI
By GScholz's definition, submarines are not warships.
From Nihon Kaigun (http://www.combinedfleet.com/) on I-70 (http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-70.htm)
The I-70 is the first Japanese combatant ship sunk by United States aircraft during World War II.
The phrase used is combatant ship, not warship.
From Webster's Dictionary
warship - n. any ship for combat use, as a battleship
Are submarines considered to be warships?
Originally posted by Rafe35
Three days after Pearl Harbor attack, with the defenses of the Philippines crumbling all around, Capt. Colin Kelly of USAAF, took surviving B-17 "Flying Fortress" from Clark Field on a mission to bomb an aircraft carrier reported off Luzon, but did not find IJN Carrier and decide bombed at Battleship Haruna, but that what they thought they sunk Battleship Haruna. After sunk the Japanese vessel, Capt. Kelly B-17 were shot up badly damage and he told his crews to bailed out, but Capt. Kelly did not bailed out and was killed in the ensuing crash.
He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for sinking the vessel and was probably was killed by Legend Saburo Sakai who was one of the Zero to shot down B-17. So, Capt. Kelly immediately became America's first air war hero during after 3 days of Pearl Harbor attack.
I don't doubt the Capt. Kelly was a hero, but did he sink a ship during this attack?
From Nihon Kaigun (http://www.combinedfleet.com/) on ASHIGARA (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ashigara_t.htm)
11 December 1941:
Covers the invasion landings at Vigan. The ASHIGARA is attacked unsuccessfully by five USAAF Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortresses" of the 14th Squadron. (The Americans later claim erroneously that Captain Colin P. Kelley sank the battleship HARUNA in this attack).
According to the same website, the battleship HARUNA was sunk at the end of the war at Kure. ASHIGARA was sunk on the Sumatran coast in June 1945.
Did Capt. Kelly sink something else?
-
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.
If the question is who first sank a Japanese naval vessel, then the midget submarine would probably be the first (unless the Chinese sank a Japanese PT boat or rubber dingy earlier). If the question is who first sank a Japanese warship, it would have to be the US action at Wake Island, the US action in the Philippines, or the K XVI.
IMHO.
-
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat.
Is that why American and British submarines had the prefex United States Ship and His Majesty's Ship?
warship: any vessel constructed or equipped for use in battle.
Does this mean PT boats did not participate in battles.
'Patrol' vessels only had numbers.
Submariners belonged to a seperate branch of the naval service.
The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line.
Though they might be still on the books, I did not know that HMS Victory and the USS Constitution did war patrols with the fleet. WW2 submarines did operate with Japanese and American fleets in the Pacific.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.
Considering that German subs nearly brought Britain and the US's war effort to it's knees, and the US subs crippled the Japanese war effort as well, with several hundred million tons sunk, it is fair to say that a submarine is indeed a warship.
Websters online says: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warship
2 entries found for warship.
warship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wrshp)
n.
A combat ship. Also called man-of-war.
n : a government ship that is available for waging war [syn: war vessel, combat ship]
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University
Now IMHO that pretty much says that a sub is a warship in my book. But if you choose to split hairs, and the sub a boat (US Navy budgeting calls subs ships) then lets look up the definition of a ship: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ship
"A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation."
considerable size would seem to include a 311 foot submarine displacing 1870 tons.
then I think we can safely call a sub a ship even if it is different tradition to call it a "boat" and it also concludes that a ship is a vessel. Well, to conincide websters says a sub is a vessel too:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=submarine
Lastly, GScholz is wrong to state that subs never worked in concert witht the fleet at all. US Subs worked on many occasions with fleet battle groups. Notably in fleet air rescue, as well as outlying radar pickets. So, a sub is just as much a ship as is the rest of the fleet.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats. A WWII submarine is no more a warship than a PT boat. The WWII submarines did not operate with the rest of the fleet like ships of the line, but rather were a separate service in most if not all navies.
I don't know where you get your information but you are mistaken Sir;
In the US NAVY (during WW2 and still today) - the definition of a BOAT is any vessel that can be carried on a larger vessel. If it is too large it is called a SHIP.
While you could load several PT Boats on a cargo ship - I doubt very seriously you could carry around a US WW2 Fleet Sub on one.
BTY, They were called "Boats" out of tradition because that was what the early WWI subs were called.
-
So the midget sub was a "war" boat.
:)
-
A boat, like a ship, is a buoyant vessel designed for the purpose of transporting people and possibly goods across water. A boat is usually smaller than a ship. Some boats are commonly carried by a ship or on land using trailers.
A boat consists of one or more buoyancy structures called hulls and some system of propulsion, such as, oars, paddles, a sail or a motor
A ship, like a boat, is a vehicle designed for passage or transportation across water. It is usually large enough to carry its own boats, such as lifeboats, dinghies, or runabouts. A rule of thumb saying (though it doesn't always apply) is "a boat can fit on a ship, but a ship can't fit on a boat". The exact size at which a ship becomes a boat is often defined by local law and regulation. Submarines are always called boats.
A submarine is a specialized boat that travels under water, usually for military purposes. Most major navies of the world employ submarines. Submarines are also used for marine and freshwater science and for work at depths too great for human divers. U-Boat is the abbreviation of Unterseeboot, the German name for German submarines (first commissioned in WWI). Another submaritime device is the diving bell.
Submarines and submariners seem to attract a variety of interesting names. Perhaps some of that stems from being a "service apart".
Why is a submarine called a "boat"?
One reason might be that because the submarine was known as a boat from the earliest conception of something that could travel beneath the surface. A German poem of around 1200 - Salman and Morolf - mentions a diving boat built of leather with a long tube supplying air, and an Englishman, William Bourne, in a 1578 treatise entitled Inventions and Devices describes: "It is possible to make a shippe or boate that may goe under the water unto the bottome".
Bourne's boat solved the problem of achieving negative buoyancy - that is, making the submarine sink - by allowing water valves to fill leather bags. A mast let in air and when the boat needed to ascend the operator squeezed out the bags, thus expelling the water.
Cornelius van Drebbel, a Dutch physician, amazed London in 1620 by submerging to 12 feet in an "oar-powered boat" and rowing it across the Thames. He did not know of Bourne's technique, however, and had problems making the boat stay down. Despite this he managed to persuade King James VI to come for a ride.
The Turtle, a US vessel used in an underwater attack against the British during the American War of Independence, was described as a boat in letters of the time. She was shaped rather like a pineapple and her designer, David Bushnell, equipped her with a snorkel, a depth gauge and a detachable explosive with a fuse. A valiant attempt was made by her commander Ezra Lee to manoeuver her underneath a British ship. This failed due to propulsion difficulties and Lee was detected. In his escape he cut loose the explosive and it went off causing the British fleet to take some alarm at the first attempt at submarine warfare.
Perhaps, therefore, the first submarines were called boats because they were small. Some descriptions say that a boat is a vessel that is routinely removed from the water. A ship is one that usually stays in the water, except for unusual occasions: dry-docking, careening, running up on a sandbar etc. Another interpretation is that a boat is any vessel that can be placed on another vessel.
Like ship's boats early submarines and diving bells were often stowed ashore or on the deck of a ship and they were indeed very small. The Turtle, for example, was a single-man craft. Fulton's submersibles of the Napoleonic era were no larger than a ship's launch. The Hunley, a submarine of the US Civil War, and the first to sink another ship - the Housatonic - carried a crew of nine. All were boats but not ships.
Although many designs were tried and tested in the following years by various navies the designs of John Holland proved the most successful. Working alone and supported by Irish Fenian money Holland designed and built a small submarine powered by a steam engine. His idea was successful largely because it solved the problems of buoyancy and stability which had plagued other designers. Known as a "wrecking boat" the first was followed by another but then the backers lost interest and Holland faded from the scene, although his memory lives on in the organisation that bought him out - the Electric Boat Company.
By the start of WWI subs were quite big - AE1 and AE2, the Australian WWI boats, were 181 feet long - but many were smaller and therefore about the same size as small warships, most of which were also called boats - torpedo boats and gun boats, for example.
The submarine service of WWI was a new branch of navies and it sought to develop its own traditions much as the air forces of WWI did. One of these may have been the term "boat", a difference to be jealously guarded, along with submariners' slang, jokes and customs - such as flying the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones, when returning from a patrol that had seen a "kill". This custom might have arisen from the condemnation submarines had received when they first became conceived of as weapons of war. Leonardo da Vinci, who had once claimed to have developed an idea for a submarine, is said to have left no notes on the subject - as he did for other inventions such as the aeroplane - because he thought "I do not publish or divulge on account of the evil nature of men who practise assassination at the bottom of the sea". Interestingly, the Hague Convention of 1899 which had set up some rules of warfare had not included submarines and the ensuing conflict certainly saw submarines carry forward new ideas of "total war" by ambushing merchantmen.
Submarines were known during WWI and beyond also as "pig boats". Perhaps a reference to the dolphin sometimes known as a sea-pig. This may well have been because a submarine needed to surface often in the type's early days, partly for air and partly for a periscope sighting. Some more unkind references give the origins of "pig boat" as relating to the smell of submarines: a combination of diesel, battery fumes, sweat, cooking and more - all in unventilated compartments.
By WWII submarines had increased in size to several hundred feet and after the war with the development of nuclear power submarines became even bigger. Many modern submarines have been designed to the extent where their tonnage can now dwarf that of destroyers and even aircraft carriers - the American Ohio-class, for example, has a displacement of 18, 750 imperial tons.
It has been argued that the term "ship" has replaced "boat", especially given the size and destructive power of many modern submarines, especially the "boomers" - the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile submarine. However, it seems that in the world of submariners the old term is still the preferred one.
>>>
It all academic gentlemen. If you want to define a Japanese midget submarine as a warship ... go right ahead. I on the other hand recognize the SS-37 as the first that sank a Japanese warship in WWII.
The SS-37 was built and launched in San Francisco in 1918-19 and commissioned in San Pedro. Calif., in 1923. On Dec. 8, 1941, she sank the Japanese destroyer Natsushio, the first Japanese ship sunk by the U.S. during World War II.
And btw. the K XVI was not the first action by the Dutch that sank a Japanese warship.
In the early morning of December 17, 1941 a flight of 2 Vl.G.I, operating from Singkawang II airbase, found several Japanese ships near Miri. That same morning the 1st "Patrouille" (Flight Commander Van den Broek) of 2 Vl.G.I attacked these ships from 4,500 meters but claimed no hits. The crews reported heavy AA fire and two of the Glenn Martin bombers returned slightly damaged [1]. In the meantime, the word of the invasion had also reached Tarakan Island on the eastern coast of Borneo, where the three Dornier flying boats of Naval Air Group GVT-7 (Marine Luchtvaart Dienst) were immediately prepared for attack. These three aircraft, (with registrations X-32, X-33 and X-34) were Dornier Do-24K's, capable of carrying a payload of 1,200 kg. They attacked in the early morning of December 17. The flying boat X-34 (Luitenant ter Zee 3e klasse A. Baarschers) never made it to Miri. He had to made an emergency landing in the jungle, while it was heading for the Japanese invasion fleet near Miri. He later reached, together with two of his crewmembers, a refugee camp at Long Nawang, only to be massacred there by Japanese troops in August 1942. The other two flying boats X-33 and X-32 were able to attack the fleet. The X-33 (Officier-Vlieger 2e klasse J.G. Petschi) attacked Japanese transport ship without succes, while X-32 (Officier-Vlieger 2e klasse B. Sjerp - unit commander) did far better. He dropped 5 bombs of 200 kg each, scoring two hits on a IJN destroyer Shinonome and a near miss. The latter apparently did most of the damage, as the target was immediately rent by a thunderous explosion, and fires broke out aboard. A few minutes later, when the smoke cleared, the waves closed over the Shinonome, who had disappeared beneath the surface, taking below its captain, Commander Hiroshi Sasagawa, and the entire crew of 228 men.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Modern nuclear submarines are considered ships, however in WWII they were classified as boats.
I don't know who told you this...but coming from a sonar tech aboard the USS ALASKA SSBN732 (B), you call my boat a ship and you'll pay. :mad: Boats are made to sink...ships aren't!:D
Also,
There are no more "boomers" in the fleet...only "Tridents". The boomers were named after the 41 for Freedom class. Once the Ohio was commisioned, all future SSBN's were nicknamed "Tridents" because of the Trident intercontinental missile that was carried.
-
Considering that German subs nearly brought Britain and the US's war effort to it's knees
U-boats only sunk 1% of all the shipping that crossed the Atlantic. This is hardly bring Britain and the USA's war effort to its knees. There was some short periods when they did cause some distress, though.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
U-boats only sunk 1% of all the shipping that crossed the Atlantic. This is hardly bring Britain and the USA's war effort to its knees. There was some short periods when they did cause some distress, though.
After mid 43 the Uboat menace was effectively neutered, prior to that it did cause situations to be very dire indeed... hence overall war stats are not a good indicator of the success of the German Uboat campaign to begin with.
-
Sorry Sonar732, didn't mean to offend you. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sorry Sonar732, didn't mean to offend you. ;)
No harm taken...just submariner pride as your other quote shows!
-
Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk. The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk. The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.
golfclap!
:D
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Who cares who sank what first and if it was a dinghy or a ship that was sunk. The important part is that the F6F kicked the crap out of the IJN and IJAAF.
i dont thing "beating the crap out" is quallified is beating sorry.
maybe its spanking.
the first plane to deliver a beating is the F4u!
:D
-
Err math it was the P38 who made the difference.
-
No, I'd say the Hellcat was the war-winning plane in the PTO. It was instrumental in achieving air superiority in the long "island-hopping" campaign that ended up on the doorstep of Japan herself. IMHO the Hellcat was the all-round best fighter of WWII in the PTO.
-
call it best carrier based.
but the p38 already made its shockin appearance before the hellcat came
oh and
usa topscoring aces proofed what was best there
;)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
call it best carrier based.
but the p38 already made its shockin appearance before the hellcat came
oh and
usa topscoring aces proofed what was best there
;)
I don't know if that is the right analysis since David McCampbell scored 34 in his Hellcat while Bong had 40 in his P-38. So does that mean that the 38 was only "6 better" than the F6F? ;)
-
6 plus the 38 from nr 2 ace
about 44 better
;)
-
The Grumman F6F 'Hellcat" or "Aces Maker" are pretty much excellent job for killing alot Japanese fighter/bomber in World War II and America's all-time champion with 307 pilots credited with five or more kills in type, also by comparison, North American's P-51 "Mustang" produced some 275+ USAAF Aces.
But the bad news that there were relatively heavy losses among F6F pilots. Throughout the war, combat-related pilot losses totalled some 450 aviators, including 20 Hellcat Aces.
I think that Grumman F6F/Vought F4U are best for US Marines Corps/Navy and Lockheed P-38/North American P-51 also best for only USAAF.
Rafe
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
After mid 43 the Uboat menace was effectively neutered, prior to that it did cause situations to be very dire indeed... hence overall war stats are not a good indicator of the success of the German Uboat campaign to begin with.
Total Net Tonnage Entering with Cargo/Entering in Ballast (Monthly Average in thousands of tons)
1939 - 4,829/1,854
1940 - 2,743/728
1941 - 2,009/115
1942 - 1,768/272
1943 - 2,265/285
1944 - 2,666/2,078
1945 - 2,412/2,224
British flagged ships entering UK ports(Monthly Average in thousands of tons)
1939 - 2,903/876
1940 - 2,110/452
1941 - 1,467/92
1942 - 1,176/175
1943 - 1,201/195
1944 - 1,345/930
1945 - 1,527/1,206
Average Monthly British Flag Vessels Lost to All Causes from Enemy Action(in thousands of gross tons)
1939 (Sep-Dec) - 107.6
1940 - 203.9
1941 - 238.65
1942 - 287.9
1943 - 126.8
1944 - 40.8
1945 (Jan-May) - 38.1
Weight of imports thousands of tons (unspecified, but probably in long tons)
food-general supplies-munitions & misc-petroleum
1939 (Sep-Dec) - 5,852/6,936/353/3,093
1940 - 19,298/22,051/1,011/12,453
1941 - 14,654/15,046/778/13,603
1942 - 10,606/11,505/780/10,710
1943 - 11,525/12,834/2,013/15,118
1944* - 10,996/11,753/2,398/20,532
1945 (Jan-May) - 3,517/4,592/734/7,828
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
The Grumman F6F 'Hellcat" or "Aces Maker" are pretty much excellent job for killing alot Japanese fighter/bomber in World War II and America's all-time champion with 307 pilots credited with five or more kills in type, also by comparison, North American's P-51 "Mustang" produced some 275+ USAAF Aces.
But the bad news that there were relatively heavy losses among F6F pilots. Throughout the war, combat-related pilot losses totalled some 450 aviators, including 20 Hellcat Aces.
I think that Grumman F6F/Vought F4U are best for US Marines Corps/Navy and Lockheed P-38/North American P-51 also best for only USAAF.
Rafe
It seems you are adding in losses to triple A to your Hellcat totals. Only 270 F6Fs were lost to enemy aircraft during WWII. In exchange Hellcats are credited with shooting down 5,203 Japanese aircraft. That's more than three times the the total shot down by P-38s (1,702), and 1,496 more than the total shot down by all USAAF fighters combined (3,703).
To the Hellcat's 5,203 kills, you can add 2,140 by F4Us and 1,006 by Wildcats. This totals to 8,349 air to air kills (thousands more destroyed on the ground to boot), or 4,642 more than the all USAAF fighters.
Another interesting Navy statistic: When escorted by F6Fs, only 42 Navy Torpedo bombers and Dive bombers are known to have been lost to Japanese fighters. One can can speculate that B-29 crews would have wished that they were that well protected by their P-51 escorts.
P-38s dominated their corner of the Pacific war (SWPA), but had far less impact on the war's outcome than did the F6F.
By the way, McCampbell obtained his 34 kills during a single deployment on the Essex, but Bong needed two tours to reach 40. Bong got his first kill on December 27th, 1942. He shots down his 34th on November 10th, 1944. His 40th came on December 16th, 1944, almost two years after his first. McCampbell's VF-15 first saw combat in late June of 1944, and he finished his single tour in late November of 1944, just 5 months.
Furthermore, McCampbell holds the absolute Allied record for the most kills in a single sortie, 7 Zeros and 2 Ki-43s. He also was credited with two probables of Zeros seen spinning down on fire, but not actually seen to hit the water. It is very likely that McCampbell actually shot down 11 fighters that day. His wingman killed another 6. This is also the most kills scored by a pair of Allied pilots during a single sortie. 15 kills, 2 probables and 2 damaged.
But wait, there's another record McCampbell holds. He shot down 34 in air to air combat, and is credited with 21 more destroyed on the ground. This total is far in excess of any combined score in the ETO. Add to that 9 probables and 5 damaged. McCampbell and his Hellcat were the single most destructive combination in all of the various western air forces.
My regards,
Widewing