This is quite the surprise!

[golani79]

Finally! 

[Katj]

On 8/12/2025 at 4:21 PM, Gambit21 said:

I am very well educated on the history of the war, the Zero, it’s design, the philosophy behind it, it’s weaknesses, and how it relates to other aircraft in the war and the philosophy behind those aircraft etc. 

The fact of the matter is that the Corsair and the Hellcat were contemporaries in the skies regardless of when the Zero first started flying (or hit the drawing table). When the Zero was designed is moot. All aircraft in the pacific were the product of mid to late 30's design.

The fact and the latest information / research indicates that the actual kill ratio in the war in 1943 (when skilled pilots were still around) was 1:1. Dive speed numbers, lack of self-sealing tanks, somewhat inferior cannons notwithstanding. Where the rubber meets the road (in actual combat/kill ratio) it was the equal of both the Corsair and the Hellcat…it’s contemporaries in combat.

Internet information on this subject is hugely out of date. I found one article with correct/ up to date info the other day but can't locate it now.

I'd suggest looking at Claringbould's recent work...all of his books are excellent, very well researched, worth reading for anyone interested in aviation in the PTO.

 

 

 

 

Well, the F6F first entered combat in late august 1943, and Corsairs were only around in small numbers. I guess there were some P-38. But regardless, I don't think those 1:1 stats reflect the competitiveness of the A6M5 vs the F6F-3 or F4U-1.

Wasn't it more that weaknesses discovered from captured Zeros and improved tactics enabled the US pilots to achieve a 1:1 ratio with predominantly the F4F wildcat?

Also, some veteran superaces of the Japanese being able to utilize the Zero effectively in 1943 speaks more to their ability than that of the aircraft.

No hate on the Zero though. It had a good run. It was the best for a good while.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Katj said:

Well, the F6F first entered combat in late august 1943, and Corsairs were only around in small numbers. I guess there were some P-38. But regardless, I don't think those 1:1 stats reflect the competitiveness of the A6M5 vs the F6F-3 or F4U-1.

Wasn't it more that weaknesses discovered from captured Zeros and improved tactics enabled the US pilots to achieve a 1:1 ratio with predominantly the F4F wildcat?

Also, some veteran superaces of the Japanese being able to utilize the Zero effectively in 1943 speaks more to their ability than that of the aircraft.

No hate on the Zero though. It had a good run. It was the best for a good while.

Corsairs we’re in service in enough numbers to draw conclusions, as was the Hellcat (though fewer/land based units) There were enough confrontations in 1943 to ascertain where the aircraft stood in relation to each other once silly over-claiming is dismissed and actual loss records for both sides examined.

The later war scewed kill ratios were a result of decimated (experienced) Japanese pilot ranks as the war progressed.

A 1:1 kill ratio does, precisely illustrate the efficacy of the Zero against the other 2 types, there’s no debate to be had there unless one is hanging on to out-dated data, “winner gets to write the history” prophoganda and / or a bit of nationalism. Which…I get. I grew up watching Blacksheep Squadron with my Dad in the 70’s. and hearing/reading about how dominant the Corsair was.

In combat, on equal terms, …It’s the later scewed ratio that does not reflect the efficacy of the Zero due to unskilled Japanese pilots later in the war.

That’s just how it happened - I commented on this in the “paging Nick Grey” thread already.

Again I’d encourage examining more recent work.

 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Gambit21

[Mr_sukebe]

On 8/12/2025 at 3:21 PM, Gambit21 said:

I am very well educated on the history of the war, the Zero, it’s design, the philosophy behind it, it’s weaknesses, and how it relates to other aircraft in the war and the philosophy behind those aircraft etc. 

The fact of the matter is that the Corsair and the Hellcat were contemporaries in the skies regardless of when the Zero first started flying (or hit the drawing table). When the Zero was designed is moot. All aircraft in the pacific were the product of mid to late 30's design.

The fact and the latest information / research indicates that the actual kill ratio in the war in 1943 (when skilled pilots were still around) was 1:1. Dive speed numbers, lack of self-sealing tanks, somewhat inferior cannons notwithstanding. Where the rubber meets the road (in actual combat/kill ratio) it was the equal of both the Corsair and the Hellcat…it’s contemporaries in combat.

Internet information on this subject is hugely out of date. I found one article with correct/ up to date info the other day but can't locate it now.

I'd suggest looking at Claringbould's recent work...all of his books are excellent, very well researched, worth reading for anyone interested in aviation in the PTO.

 

 

 

 

Just had a scan at Claringbould's info online.  Interesting stuff.

Funny how all over the place available onlines sources are, e.g:

• Wiki states the F4u was first used by VF12.  Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia
• This summary of VF12 doesn't mention the F4u: VF-12 - Wikipedia
• VF-17 was next mentioned by Wiki, and this suggests that they had 152 victories with the F4u
• However, this suggests that VF-17 were given, Hellcats before "firing a weapon in anger": VF-17 The original "Jolly Rogers" World Naval Ships Forums Archive
• VFMA-124 was apparently the first marine squadron, though there's no mention of k/d ratio.  They do however mention that the squadron members had an average of just 25 hours in the aircraft.  Hardly what you'd call experienced
• This includes a claimed victory/loss for VFMA-124, of 69:11.  U.S. Marine Aviation in World War II: VMF 124 in the Solomons.
• VMF-113, VMF-312, VMF-323 were not in combat until 1944
• VMF-214 claimed 203 victories, 97 of which were apparently confirmed.  VMFA-214 - Wikipedia
• VMF-224 didn't have F4u's until their Marshall island campaign, and it looks like they didn't see combat with the F4s until 1944: HyperWar: USMC Operations in WWII: Vol V--Western Pacific Operations [Chapter V-1]

Another interesting stat:

"claimed a 12:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and 6:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K-J, and Mitsubishi J2M combined during the last year of the war"

 

That 2:1 disparity highlights to me that the Corsair/Hellcat were both significant steps ahead of the the Zero, and that the Japanese really should have been introducing their better late war fighters at a higher rate.

[Silver_Dragon]

We all know that after the Marianas, the Kiro Butai was no longer a threat, not only because of the loss of experienced pilots, but also because of the extremely high attrition and Allied superiority. The Marianas disaster confirms this, especially when alerts were being issued at 50 miles, more than enough to trigger massive counterattacks... It's nice to think about 1-on-1 carrier battles, but if navies are going to be recreated, they would have to be done to the fullest extent.