Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on January 22, 2001, 12:24:00 PM
-
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
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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 (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"
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
-
(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.
-
Agreed!!
Although the Jug had a pretty good record too.
-
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
-
And how about landing/take-off accidents with p47 / sortie compares to F4u?
-
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
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDEJznXbXfCxAJfgD0a7w1sDVrWuMP28UBOabRCH339Yvya3KrR2Q8UMjrBJ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-23-2001).]
-
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
-
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... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Some slightly muddy road and plop plop plop.. bullets sunks into the road
(not to talk about off-road...)
-
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
-
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.
-
Pongo,
Actually that percentage is based on combat losses per combat sortie. Not per A/C built.
Eddiek,
Where did you get the Jug's ariel K/D being 4.6:1? It looks allot higher(better) than that based on the numbers for losses I have seen.
-
FYI, the F4F wildcat had a higher number of ground looping accidents than the F4U ever did, according to one author in Flight Journal.
-
Widewing,
Have you seen the evaluation of the P-47, F4U, P-51 and F6F done by "The society of Experimental Test Pilots" done in 1989?
BTW, I have been unable to locate Jeff Ethell's "Buyers guide for classic Warbirds". If you have an ISBN I would really appreciate it.
Thanks
F4UDOA
-
bit off topic, but somebody else brought it up. I have fired A/P rounds in mgs at boiler plate that was about 5/8 inch thick. from the bren gun they would just stick into the plate much like an arrow does when it strikes a tree. I shot at them in an old strip mine and had plenty of 303 A/P ammo. even at weird angles of 45 degrees the A/P round would stick into the metal and not ricochet off like one would expect. Sorry, but cant comment on the A/P round for the 50 cal. everytime we shot at the plate the A/P round of the 50 cal would just punch a hole in the boiler plate that was 5/8 of an inch thick.
I wasnt testing to find ricocheting of the bullets so I didnt try it at angles less than 45 degrees. it was too hard cause the strip mine was filled with water. the plate would sometimes fall over while you were rattling it with the bren and thats why I got all kinds of different angles that the bullets struck the plate. somebody pointed out that the angle of deflection is the same as impact so if the A/P round had enough energy to punch thru the tanks thin armor, then it would also have enough energy to punch thru what ever it bounced off of. the angle would have to be less than 45 degrees cause every A/P round I fired at angles between 90 and 45 degrees would not ricochet.
-
Originally posted by 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."
Well, I was actually attempting to make a rather lame joke, and was referring to the bulldozers wrecked in air attacks and naval bombardment at Guadalcanal. I'm sure many others were destroyed in other campaigns.
My regards,
Widewing
-
eddiek wrote:
"Over half a million sorties (Widewing said 747,000, more specific than my source)"
I neglected to point out that the 747,000 sorties included those flown by the RAF, Brazilian and other Allied Air Forces.
However, the loss rate differed little between the various Allied Air Forces. The USAAF loss rate was 0.7% excluding non-combat losses, which were relatively low as well as I recall.
My regards,
Widewing
-
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
Just a reminder that you promised to post the links Eddiek.
Does anyone know what quantity of aircraft were used to fly this many sorties? Or the average number of sorties per pilot? I'm curious as to how it stacks up against the Navy and Marine birds.
AKDejaVu
-
Ok, here are the links........took me a while to dig them back up, and to be honest, I almost said to heck with it.........the remarks about the solidity of the road kinda caught me off guard. Water is liquid, and have any of you ever noticed in the old WW2 combat films, the gun camera ones, that show a plane strafing a ship? Notice the tracers flying off in different directions? Well, they bounced, or ricchoceted off the surface of the ocean, I believe the pilots called them "fliers", but I may be wrong. So, yes, it was possible for the AP ammo to penetrate the armor.....not a 100% sure chance, but it did happen, according to some. If water will make a round go flying off, would not earth, especially hard packed like one would find on a road traveled by tanks, which weighed 30 tons (approximately, cannot remember the exact figures)?
Anyway, here are the links:
http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/8.htm (http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/8.htm)
http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html (http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html)
http://www.p47advocates.com/thep47.html (http://www.p47advocates.com/thep47.html)
http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=103 (http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=103)
I tried to access the website that gave the 4.6:1 k/d ratio, but got a message saying it is now inactive......will try one more link I have written down.
[This message has been edited by eddiek (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Don't know much but I'm just done reading "P47 Thunderbolt aces of the 8thAF" jerry Scutts.
He said the 56th alone was credited with 1006.5 kills, 677 being air kills. reading his stories, it's evident that a lot of those aces felt from ack fire at the end.
As far as the number of kills, most P47 squadrons transitioned to P51. P47's would had probably have more kills if those squadron stayed P47.
Just my modest contribution.
-
Fifties will bounce off a road, of this I have first hand experience (and it was very unnerving to us at that) however, I do question knocking out panzers by this method,since in order to get a ricochet at the right angle to hit the underbelly dead-on
(the only way you'd penetrate) the aircraft in question would have to be in a nearly 80 degree dive at low alt. so did the rounds disable the panzer? or was it that bloody great aeroplane landing on it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Now, back to the top, IMHO, "Ensign Eliminator" was one of those wartime urban legends, if you recall they called the B26 the "flying prostitute" because it had no visible support, a reference to the narrow wing.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Originally posted by pzvg:
...if you recall they called the B26 the "flying prostitute" because it had no visible support, a reference to the narrow wing.
And to dispose of these urban legends, such as in the case of the B26, Doolittle used to go to the front lines where these A/C were delivered, and flew the B26 aerobatically, thus dispelling the myth, and making some of the naysayer pilots look rediculous.