M18 Hellcat or F6F Hellcat; Which one was more important?

[Bog]

I definitely admire the M18's speed and good gun. I can remember back in the Beta demo days when I played Last Defence, and how they turned the tables for me in that battle.

Then I got to wonderin'. The M-18 Hellcat tank destroyer and the F6F Hellcat fighter plane both were important in the war. But which one was more important?

I am hoping this will spark some lively discussion.

[Nathman]

The F6F Hellcat was responsible for nearly 75% of all US navy's air-to-air victories against Japanese aircraft (shot down nearly 5000). To quote Bill Gunston, noted British military aviation historian, "Though pugnacious rather than elegant, the Hellcat was a truly war-winning aircraft".

I doubt the phrase "war-winning" could be said for the M18 Hellcat.

[Berlichtingen]

Nathman has the right of it. The M18 was unimportan in the grand scheme of things. The F6F was critical

[Rick614]

They were said to have built by the Grumann "Ironworks".

[Joe Shaw]

Not much discussion about this, the F6F all day long.

Joe

------------------

I heartily admit you are a swine, Joe. But you are OUR swine. (Goanna)

[gunnergoz]

F6F over M-18 - Not even close.

[GriffinCheng+]

I have some doubt about it. F4F Wildcat served aboard on US carriers through initial Battle of Coral Seas, Battle of Midway and a series of battles around Guadalcanal in 1942. The Wildcats held off the Japanese advances and of course, the performance difference made their losses pretty high. However, the attrition rate of IJN aviation was so great, the Japanese lost most of her experienced pilots.

When F6F Hellcat came into service in 1943, the IJN had to recall most of her fornt line pilots to retrain the green cadets for the loss was just too high to affoard. Worse, the F6F, while looking almost identical to F4F, outperformed Zeke San in most aspect, except in terms of firepower (Zeke San had 2 20mm cannons). F6F, while it was a pretty good "turn fighter", she was also a capable "energy fighter" too, but may not be as good as F4U Corsair. Of course, when the Japanse began to equip Ki-84, that was another story.

Griffin.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Warmaker]

F6F all the way. The M-18 shouldn't even be mentioned alongside it. As far as WWII USN/USMC aircraft goes, I prefer the F47 Corsair (ugly as hell but awesome). The F6F was favored by the USN since it was a relatively "safe" bird as far as handling went which was important since the USN had a huge influx of new pilots. The configuration of the Corsair if you can look at it, you can see that landing on a carrier can be a bit tricky. Since the USN preferred the F6F over the F4U many Corsairs went to the Marines who learned to love it (the Navy still had Corsair squadrons though). Oh, oh... starting to go off in a different direction...

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[Slapdragon]

All three of the "over 20" Navy aces: McCambell, Harris, and Valencia, flew and swore by the Hellcat, but in the sceme of things the Hellcat was not the ultimate warrior in scoring or in being indispensible.

Of the 5 over 20 club members in the Marines, none flew Hellcats, and all but one flew Corsairs (the highest, Foss, had the most impressive record since he killed 26 Japanese from an F4F at a time when the Zero was technically better, and when he faced their best pilots.)

The two highest scorers in the Pacific flew neither the Hellcat nor the Corsair, but the P-38. Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire flew and swore by the P-38 a navalized version of which was considered and never even seen by the Navy (who has traditionally bought Grumman fighters).

On the other hand, the M-18 was unique. Designed by tank destroyer vets, it killed 10 for 1 using hit and run tactics, was loved by its crews (how many US AFVs can that be said about) and although the Jackson would be the TD kept in combat the longest, the M-18 was kept in action to the end.

So, you COULD argue that the F-6F was one of several fighters that could have done that job in the Pacific (and in fact its combat loss to kill ratio was nowhere near the F4U and P-38) while in the ETO, given the poor overall quality of the ETO, the loss of the M-18 would have been difficult to handle. Not that this question makes any sense, but there is an argument that could be made for the opposite conclusion as first seems sensible.

[GriffinCheng+]

Slappy, agreed. F-4U Corsair was known to the Japanese pilots as "The Whistling Death" for they were fast and deadly -- the best energy fighter in PTO.

For the case of P-38, the extended range and maneuverability earned her name "twin-head devil".

Hey, but where is my turn?! You wanna surrender?

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 02-13-2001).]

[GriffinCheng+]

Hey, I thought P-38 in PTO was mainly used by US Army Avaiation.

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

the P-38 a navalized version of which was considered and never even seen by the Navy (who has traditionally bought Grumman fighters).

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Warmaker]

GriffinCheng, reread his post. The "Navy" version of the '38 didn't go well with the USN since of it's preference for Grumman aircraft(which also is part of the factor why the F6F was chosen over the Corsair). Result being you'll never see a Lightning on a carrier deck.

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[GriffinCheng+]

Ah, thanks for correcting me.

Griffin.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Kingfish]

Although the M18 Hellcat is fast, I doubt it can reach speeds capable of launching off a flight deck, so my vote goes to the F6F.

------------------

"What do you know about surfing, major, you're from God damn New Jersey"

[Guest Wildman]

One minor point about IJN pilot attrition. Many pilots were lost during Midway, but many were lost when the carriers were destroyed. Many were recovered, but with fewer carriers to fly from never in overwhelming numbers.

The attrition didn't really start until the Hellcat arrived. Until then the underdog of the war the F4F Wildcat kept pace with the Zeros but never was able to turn the tide. Even Midway was unaffected by the F4F. Without the sacrifice of three torpedo squadrons that brought the Zeros down low, it is doubtful the Wildcats could have kept the Zeros away from the slow Dauntless'.

That being said, yes there were several other planes in the PTO that did wonders. Although if I remember correctly Bong and the AAF in P-38, had more bomber kills than anything else. While most F6F kills were fighter kills, due to the Marianis(sp) Turkey shoot and the tendency to put Kamakaze's in fighters.

Over all, F6F all the way.

---

[Chupacabra]

Bah, the poor Warhawk never gets any respect. The P-40 may have been obsolete, but it just looked cool.

Soooo...how about the worst plane of the PTO? My vote would have to go the the Brewster Buffalo.

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[jgdpzr]

Chuppy, so you don't like the flying barrel? At least the Buffalo was unabashedly obsolete come wartime. I think the P39 has to earn some points if for no other reason than it was supposedly a modern design. I mean, any plane that would earn the nick "Iron Sled" has to have some pretty questionable attributes. Not bad for a tank buster with the nose mounted 30MM cannon, but I don't seem to recall the Japanese Army being a tank-building powerhouse. And talk about ugly, there go more style points out the canopy (er, make that door).

I agree, those shark-mouthed P40s at least looked cool, and Chenault's boys didn't do too bad in them.

[Maximus]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

I have some doubt about it. F4F Wildcat served aboard on US carriers through initial Battle of Coral Seas, Battle of Midway and a series of battles around Guadalcanal in 1942. The Wildcats held off the Japanese advances and of course, the performance difference made their losses pretty high. However, the attrition rate of IJN aviation was so great, the Japanese lost most of her experienced pilots.

However, it was really the SDB Dauntleses that won the day during Coral Sea and Midway. Without those the Japs wouldn't have lost four carriers at Midway.

[LimShady]

For the case of P-38, the extended range and maneuverability earned her name "twin-head devil".

Griffin,

I just checked my Wings video...

The Germans nicknamed the Lightning the "Fork-tailed Devil".

The Japanese called the Lightning the "Two planes with one pilot".

Personally I like the German name better...

LimShady

[Cos]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Bah, the poor Warhawk never gets any respect. The P-40 may have been obsolete, but it just looked cool.

Soooo...how about the worst plane of the PTO? My vote would have to go the the Brewster Buffalo.

I remember seeing gun camera footage from a P51 dusting a Japanese biplane trying to attack the bomber stream over Japan. That guy wasn't flying top of the line

[CavScout]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

Hey, but where is my turn?! You wanna surrender?

Yeah, Slap!

What he said! Where's my turn!

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

On the other hand, the M-18 was unique. Designed by tank destroyer vets, it killed 10 for 1 using hit and run tactics, was loved by its crews (how many US AFVs can that be said about) and although the Jackson would be the TD kept in combat the longest, the M-18 was kept in action to the end.

hey slapdragon, can you post a source for the 10:1? i mentioned it in another post and someone asked for a reference...

thanks!

------------------

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Wesy]

I think the F6F was the most important plane. It was produced in such numbers with well trained pilots. Midway was not good for Japanese aviation, but the Solomon Islands were disatrous. Japanese planes and pilots were operating at long ranges and suffered heavily from attrition. (poor logistical support, non combat losses, parts and trained crew to fix them)

Towards the end of the war there were Japanese planes that were superior (Ki-84, Shiden/Shiden Kai, Ki-100)to the F6F, but were not produced in large enough quantities, with sufficent QC and of course the trained pilots to make them effective.

------------------

"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"

- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[kverdon]

Wildman,

I have to disagree with you in your statement that the attrition of the Japanese began after the introduction of the F6F. Study the conflict in detail and you will find there was major attrition of the Japanese Airforce during the Solomons and New Guiniea Campaigns. These two campaigns running from May '42 to Late '43, bled the Japanese Naval and Army Airforces white and killed of most of their experienced pilots. They stipped whole carrier Airwings and threw them into that meatgrinder. The attition of the IJN/IJA Airforces occurred in the Solomons and New Guinea, what happened later was the slaughter of the remainder.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by kverdon (edited 02-13-2001).]

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Wesy:

Towards the end of the war there were Japanese planes that were superior (Ki-84, Shiden/Shiden Kai, Ki-100)to the F6F, but were not produced in large enough quantities, with sufficent QC and of course the trained pilots to make them effective.

Wesy makes a important point here--quantity matters as much as quality (and sometimes more.) As CM proves, finding tactically effective ways to use the weapons you have--emphasizing their strengths and working around their weaknesses, also matters. If you follow the implication of much of this discussion--which I, of course, agree with-- the F6F was more important than the M18 not necessarily because it was a better weapon but because it was more important numerically and "historically" (as, for example, the sole major naval fighter in such major carrier battles as the Phillipine Sea/Marianas Turkey Shoot and Leyte Gulf--my favorite sea battle!) while the M18 was just a component in the overall US Tank/TD package.

Does anyone know how many M18s the US actually had, relative to M10s and M36s? Also, does anyone know how these numbers compare to the Germans on total TDs built? It's a lot easier, it seems, to find tank numbers.