Will Carry
Member
This may be too easy but I think it's cool. What WW2 fighter had the highest kill to loss ratio against it's opponent?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Another WW2 airplane trivia question
- Thread starter Will Carry
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
OFT II
US Veteran
F6F Hellcat?
My vote would go to the P-51D in the ETO. The American Heroes channel just voted it the outstanding fighter aircraft of all time, up against 9 other planes including the newest F-22s. Among the factors considered, as I recall were cost, manufacturability, combat record, and intimidation factor, all within the period made. The English Spitfire and even the German WWII ME 262 jet plane were rated inferior to the Mustang. The Hellcat was not even in the running. As bomber escort aircraft over Germany, the P-51Ds saw immense action, and our pilots usually made mincemeat out of most German fighters. The P-51Ds had powerful 12-cylinder Merlin engines, making them quite fast. The plane was maneuverable, well-balanced, and had good visibility for the pilot. Three fifty-caliber MGs on each wing give them a lot of firepower and coverage area. When you heard that big engine cough into life, you knew that somewhere, one or more of the enemy was doomed.
John
John
Last edited:
ParadiseRoad
Member
...I'd have to vote for the Mustang also...pilots said it was the easiest to fly well...had great performance...it would let you concentrate on your main objective...I always liked the F4U Corsair...wicked looking thing with those bent wings...and who can argue with a plane that has a thirteen foot diameter propeller swing?...
Faulkner
Member
Ha, I don't suppose the one with the most votes wins, but the one with the best actual statistics.
F6F Hellcat had the best kill ratio at 19 to 1. F4U Corsair had the second best kill ratio.
Targets Guy
US Veteran
Whichever ones that participated in the Marianas Turkey shoot.
My guess would be "The Jug", the P-47 Thunderbolt. Kill to loss ratio was 1006:128.
The actual statistics are going to be pretty sketchy since many aircraft served in multiple theaters and their success ratios was very different in each one.
Bob
The actual statistics are going to be pretty sketchy since many aircraft served in multiple theaters and their success ratios was very different in each one.
Bob
Last edited:
Big Cholla
Member
Without a doubt, the Grumman F6F had the best kill to loss ratio of all USA fighters in WW II. The original design was tweaked to maximize its advantages over the Japanese Zero. Also, when the F6F entered WW II the Japanese had mostly lost air superiority over a majority of the South Pacific. Our well trained Naval Pilots were quick to use all their airplane's advantages and their far better combat training to start racking up that great kill to loss ratio. Some say it might have been as much as 19 to 1. .......
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,820
Are we talking strictly of Allied fighters? or does this include Axis aircraft? If both? id say P-51, and Hartmann's Messerschmidt.
There are a number of factors in determining kill ratios. For example, in the ETO more of our planes were lost in strafing runs than in dogfights. My friend Dick Plowden, a P-47 ground support pilot, who lost one of his planes due to flak, would vouch for that. Also, in the PTO we were facing more inexperienced "last ditch" pilots and more antiquated aircraft. If you are evaluating aircraft, I'd match the Mustang way higher against a Hellcat. Pilot skill, both ours and the enemy's, was a much larger factor in kill ratios than aircraft design during WWII. A lot of German pilots were experienced dogfighters (witness Erich Hartmann as the leading ace of the war), but our guys with mostly equal skill and better aircraft proved more effective. One also has to define a "kill" carefully; a downed plane with a surviving pilot might be counted as a "kill," but that pilot could still fly another plane.
In Korea, pilot skill was still the overriding factor. The F-86s and MIG-15s were almost perfectly matched, but our pilots were superior, and the kill ratio was lopsided in our favor.
In modern times that has not been not true. The F-15 has a perfect kill ratio, with zero losses in the air, more due to its advanced armament technology, although our pilots are still top-notch.
John
In Korea, pilot skill was still the overriding factor. The F-86s and MIG-15s were almost perfectly matched, but our pilots were superior, and the kill ratio was lopsided in our favor.
In modern times that has not been not true. The F-15 has a perfect kill ratio, with zero losses in the air, more due to its advanced armament technology, although our pilots are still top-notch.
John
Last edited:
Faulkner
Member
I would agree that of the two, the P-51 is a better overall fighter aircraft than the F6F, evidenced in part by the fact that the Mustang had a much more extended career over the Hellcat following WWII.
But, pursuant to the OP's original question, there are a number of issues which factor in to the Hellcat's overall kill ratio. Many historians agree that one of the biggest mistakes the Japanese made was to not pull their experienced pilots back from the front lines soon enough to help train new pilots. By late 1943 the ranks of the experienced Japanese pilots had been severely reduced and the new pilots they were turning out were nowhere near the caliber of the typical Japanese pilot in 1941.
Conversely, the United States Army Air Force and the Navy withdrew many experienced pilots back to the states to train the next batch. While new Japanese pilots were weaker, America was turning out better pilots that had been taught tactics from the experience of the first two years of the war. As the war progressed in the Pacific the scales tilted more and more in the Americans favor so that my the time of the Battle of the Philippine Sea the air battle really was a 'turkey shoot' for the Americans with a target rich environment.
I would agree, too, that the capability of the aircraft the Hellcat was up against was not near the capability of those the Mustang was battling over Europe. The late war Zero was not much different than the Zero of 1941, and the Japanese could not produce their newer, more advanced aircraft in enough quantities to make much of a difference. Conversely, the Mustang was up against the best and most advanced aircraft of the day. The FW-190 was considered the equal to the Mustang in the hands of a similarly skilled pilot.
Last edited:
I'm not going to google anything. I would just think the Corsair would have an edge since it was a late arrival to the conflict, so it was a superior aircraft and would have been in the hands of very skilled pilots, against quickly deteriorating enemy pilots, equipment, and training. The Hellcat had the most kills in the PTO. I think the fact that our later fighters were so good, makes us think the Wildcats and P-40s were old junk, when actually they proved themselves against the best the Japanese ever had. Same in the ETO, the P-47 was a death machine for the Nazis, but it couldn't fly to Berlin to escort bombers and ambush the Luftwaffe as they came in on the bombers. The Mustang and Corsair were the apex of propeller driven pursuit aircraft. The Lightning proved it's worth throughout the war, in every theater. I like 'em all, even the old Bell P-39.
Bottom line there is a reason we had more than one type of fighter aircraft............
different rolls to fulfill.......... changing as the war progressed..........
facing different enemy fighter aircraft/pilots.........
different range of missions......
and some had to be carrier capable...................................
in the end you want the best fighter for the mission........................
different rolls to fulfill.......... changing as the war progressed..........
facing different enemy fighter aircraft/pilots.........
different range of missions......
and some had to be carrier capable...................................
in the end you want the best fighter for the mission........................
Last edited:
OP
Will Carry
Member
The Brewster Buffalo has a 32:1 kill ratio against the Russians. The little plane that could, when flown by Finnish pilots. Pappy Boyington loved the Buffalo, he said it was a Hot Rod.
Just another 2 cents here, as the war turned in our favor, not only did we have better, newer aircraft, and better pilots and tactics, we also had better logistics, upgraded parts, and you can bet, a much better grade of fuel. I think some of the most terrifying camera footage of the war is fighters strafing locomotives, and the boiler blows. Man, you know several guys got knocked down from that.
THE PILGRIM
Member
I did meet that Retired Marine Brigadier who was flying the Buffalo at the start of the war.
He was the only survivor of his original squadron.
Not all of those got killed flying the Buffalo, but several did.
It wasn't that much fun going up against the Japanese in that crate!
He was the only survivor of his original squadron.
Not all of those got killed flying the Buffalo, but several did.
It wasn't that much fun going up against the Japanese in that crate!
susieqz
Absent Comrade
i'm surprised the finns did ok with the buffalo.
i have read our marines driving them were slaughtered by the zeros.
is this not true?
i have read our marines driving them were slaughtered by the zeros.
is this not true?
THE PILGRIM
Member
Yes it's true. The Marines, Brits and Dutch all got slaughtered up against the Japanese.
At Midway, the USMC launched 20 and lost 13.
The retired Marine that I hear tell the story was one of the lucky 7 that got back.
The FM-2 with a 32.46 to 1 kill ratio.
The F4U had a kill ratio of 11:1;
the F6F had a kill ratio of the 19:1; and
the F4F had a kill ratio of 6.9 to 1.
However if you separate out the General Motors Eastern Division built FM2 derivative of the F4F, and the US Navy did, counting its kills and losses separately, the kill ratio for the FM-2 rises to a very impressive 32.46:1, with 422 credited air to air victories and only 13 air to air losses.
The FM-2 used the lighter but more powerful 1,350 hp Wright R-1820-56) rather than the 1,200 hp R-1830 Pratt and Whitney engine and is identifiable by the taller vertical fin, and it also reverted to the lighter 4 gun configuration of the F4F-3
I interviewed a WWII instructor pilot once who was stationed on the west coast where he was able to engage nearly all US types in dissimilar air combat and he stated that he felt the most formidable dogfighter was "a hot stick in a Wildcat" in reference to the late war FM-2.
At the time I doubted what he said, but then I did some research and found some very interesting facts. It turns out that the FM-2 is another one of the under rated WWII fighters. It only had a top speed of 330 mph and a critical altitude of about 18,000 ft, but due to its lighter weight and increased power, it was very agile and had a very good rate of climb.
The FM-2 could climb at 3,150 fpm compared to just 1,850 for the F4F-4, and actually climbed better than the A6M5 Zero between sea level and 4,000ft, and again between 8,000 and 13,000 ft, with a maximum advantage of about 500 fpm.
It was also faster than the A6M5 below 7,000 ft, being about 6 mph faster at sea level and about 4 mph faster at 5,000 ft.
Roll rates between the two aircraft were equal at speeds under 160 kts but the FM-2 had a distinct advantage at speeds over 160 kts and the FM-2 was more maneuverable overall at speeds over 200 kts.
Despite the Zero's vaunted reputation for tight turns, at all altitudes and speeds the A6M5 had only a very slight edge in turn rate over the FM-2, gaining about 1 turn in 8 turns at 10,000 f. However, that advantage was more than offset by the FM-2s better roll rate (getting it into and out of turns faster) provided the FM-2 pilot kept the speed up above 160 kts and didn't engage in a prolonged turning fight.
In short, it was actually the first US fighter that could dogfight the A6M5 and beat it on its own terms - something that is usually credited (in error) to the F8F Bearcat.
The only other fighter that exceeds the FM-2 in kill ratio is the P-61 Black Widow, a night fighter which scored 127 kills for no air to air losses. However, as a night fighter, the role is much different and not really comparable - even though the P-61 itself was both fast and very maneuverable (although it bled airspeed quickly).
The F4U had a kill ratio of 11:1;
the F6F had a kill ratio of the 19:1; and
the F4F had a kill ratio of 6.9 to 1.
However if you separate out the General Motors Eastern Division built FM2 derivative of the F4F, and the US Navy did, counting its kills and losses separately, the kill ratio for the FM-2 rises to a very impressive 32.46:1, with 422 credited air to air victories and only 13 air to air losses.
The FM-2 used the lighter but more powerful 1,350 hp Wright R-1820-56) rather than the 1,200 hp R-1830 Pratt and Whitney engine and is identifiable by the taller vertical fin, and it also reverted to the lighter 4 gun configuration of the F4F-3
I interviewed a WWII instructor pilot once who was stationed on the west coast where he was able to engage nearly all US types in dissimilar air combat and he stated that he felt the most formidable dogfighter was "a hot stick in a Wildcat" in reference to the late war FM-2.
At the time I doubted what he said, but then I did some research and found some very interesting facts. It turns out that the FM-2 is another one of the under rated WWII fighters. It only had a top speed of 330 mph and a critical altitude of about 18,000 ft, but due to its lighter weight and increased power, it was very agile and had a very good rate of climb.
The FM-2 could climb at 3,150 fpm compared to just 1,850 for the F4F-4, and actually climbed better than the A6M5 Zero between sea level and 4,000ft, and again between 8,000 and 13,000 ft, with a maximum advantage of about 500 fpm.
It was also faster than the A6M5 below 7,000 ft, being about 6 mph faster at sea level and about 4 mph faster at 5,000 ft.
Roll rates between the two aircraft were equal at speeds under 160 kts but the FM-2 had a distinct advantage at speeds over 160 kts and the FM-2 was more maneuverable overall at speeds over 200 kts.
Despite the Zero's vaunted reputation for tight turns, at all altitudes and speeds the A6M5 had only a very slight edge in turn rate over the FM-2, gaining about 1 turn in 8 turns at 10,000 f. However, that advantage was more than offset by the FM-2s better roll rate (getting it into and out of turns faster) provided the FM-2 pilot kept the speed up above 160 kts and didn't engage in a prolonged turning fight.
In short, it was actually the first US fighter that could dogfight the A6M5 and beat it on its own terms - something that is usually credited (in error) to the F8F Bearcat.
The only other fighter that exceeds the FM-2 in kill ratio is the P-61 Black Widow, a night fighter which scored 127 kills for no air to air losses. However, as a night fighter, the role is much different and not really comparable - even though the P-61 itself was both fast and very maneuverable (although it bled airspeed quickly).
Last edited:
