The goal of conflict is to destroy the enemy. This calculates the total cost of each type of fighter and divides that cost by the number of enemy planes destroyed. The numbers were really surprising.
Some caveats:
1. This doesn't take into account ground attack and shipping targets which were a major target of both the P-38 and P-47 fighter-bombers.
2. The Hellcat was purely a Pacific Theater fighter, and introduced after the loss of the most experienced Japanese pilots at Midway and other 1942 battles. The lopsided kill-to-loss ratio really stands out, but is explained by that. Compared to the others, it's shockingly inexpensive - a third the cost of a P-38.
3. The Mustang was pitted against what may have been the most formidable opponent, the Luftwaffe before pilot attrition in the Spring of 1944 degraded it. The fact that it performed so well against that foe makes it (by the numbers) make this the most cost-effective fighter of the US forces.
I expect that all y'all will correct me in the the comments ...
Sources:
WW2Aircraft.net, Warbirds and Airshows, Bouwman.com, Wikipedia pages for P-38/P-47/F6F/P-51
No inverted gull wings. Not awesome enough. Corsair wins!
ReplyDeleteYa... the P51 and the pilots who flew them did an awesome job. In the matter of Luftewaffe pilot attrition ... I'm pretty sure they did a lot to cut down the numbers of experienced German pilots.
ReplyDeleteWithout accounting for the ground attack role, the figures are not relevant to their overall effectiveness or efficiency as to cost/kill. It only applies to plane to plane kills. The P-47 as you say, had a huge ground attack role. This was a very effective fighter.
ReplyDeleteI love the F-4 but that kill number on the P-51 takes the cake. I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, P-51s would strafe on the way back home.
One thing to remember was the change in tactics after the P-51 was introduced, and when it achieved sufficient numbers to allow the change - up to that point fighters were assigned to protect the bombers, going after German fighters only when they attacked the bombers; the new tactic was to attack the German fighters when they came up to attack the bombers. The P-51 mission became "destroy the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe" and P-51 pilots were quite successful at it. First, Luftwaffe pilots couldn't effectively attack the bombers when they were fighting for their lives against P-51s, and pretty soon attrition reduced the number of experienced Luftwaffe pilots, leaving the "FNGs" who were much easier pickings for experienced, well-trained P-51 pilots, accelerating the rate of attrition, which was exacerbated by the fuel shortages caused by bombing, preventing the new Luftwaffe pilots from getting sufficient flying time during training to learn how not to be P-51 fodder.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing showed up in 1944 with the Marianas Turkey Shoot, where experienced, well-trained Hellcat pilots shredded rookie Japanese pilots.
Need to add the Corsair, as stated above. Also no factoring of operational cost per hour. P-38 had two trouble-prone Allison engines which had to be worked on constantly and replaced frequently. The P-51's Rolls Royce/Packard power plants were reliable but had short lives. The Pratt and Whitney radials would run for freaking ever, by contrast, and needed far less maintenance.
ReplyDeleteI love the P-51 but think that it benefited from a target-rich environment over Europe that the fighters in the Pacific just never got because the Japs ran low on fighters and pilots fairly early on and tended to send them out in smaller batches. You can't kill what doesn't come up to fight.
Yep, P-51 wins, hands down...
ReplyDeleteMustang FTW!
ReplyDeleteThe P-39 was a mean SOB in the hands of the Russians...
ReplyDeleteThe biggest cost is also ignored: the pilot. In fact he may be the biggest financial loss if he is lost with the bird.
ReplyDeleteThe chubby Hellcat may not have been the flashiest bird out there but he WAS the most heavily armoured and he could take a beating that would sent the rest of them down in flames. I suspect he would have done well in the euro theatre too with the proper mods.
I can't find actual cost numbers on the Corsair, but there's a hint here that it was almost three times as expensive as a Mustang.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-64012.aspx#startofcomments
I like the Whistling Death but not in a trade for 3 Mustangs.
Glen, yours is a great point. I know that the pilots loved the Hellcat's toughness and armor plate.
Still gotta say the Lightning is my fav. That bad boy was a workhorse, and saw action pretty much from start to finish, if I recall my dates semi-correctly. Engine probs aside, its the only one listed that could lose an engine and still make it back home. Lot of the pilot memoirs I've read mention that fact! Although, I did read one ("Last Great Ace" by Charles A. Martin or Bruning's "Jungle Ace") had a story about the AAF wanting to switch from P38 to P47 for some squadrons in the Pacific. Opinions were high, tempers were higher, and Maj. Thomas McGuire and another hot ace decided to settle which was the better plane by setting up a mock dogfight between the two (McGuire, of course, flew the Lightning). As it was, when both planes had to set down to refuel, observers on the ground were unanimous...it was a draw. Great planes, both of them, and flown by top pilots, they could both fly circles around pretty much anything the Japanese could throw at them.
ReplyDeleteMartin Caidin was always a big P-38 fan. I've always been partial to the P-40, but it's not a patch on the late war hot rods.
ReplyDeleteCorsair:
ReplyDeleteCorsair
$75000/plane.
Chris C wins the Internets!
ReplyDelete