# Best Fighter in the Pacific and CBI Theaters in 1942



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

I am using generic "names" rather than specific models for these aircraft, so as to include all of the models that WERE IN QUANTITY AND IN THEATER at any time from Nov 1941 to Dec 1942. I also consider the C-B-I to be part of the larger PTO. I am also omitting the clearly inferior types, as anyone who considers the "Buffalo" to be a great airplane is either delusional, simply fooling themselves, or a combination of both.

As for giving the crown to an aircraft for "Best Fighter", it is patently unfair to compare models that were flying at the end of the war with the models that were flying at the beginning. Therefore we have to consider the aircraft that were flying within one of the several several phases of the war.

For the purposes of this poll, consider "Phase 1" to be Nov 1941 and the AVG experiences, culminating with Dec 1942 with the winding down of the Guadalcanal campaign, the changing OOB in Papua and the influx of new types.

I am specifically excluding the P38D E from this poll, as they were only available in limited numbers in Alaska, which was far from the main battle area's of the CBI and SW Pacific.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2009)

Over all during that period, taking into all factors including range of the planes (including taking into consideration being able to land on a carrier or not). I will have to say the Zero. But it is close with the P-40 and Wildcat, which both were very solid planes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 19, 2009)

Great poll, syscom!

Tough call between the P-40 and the F4F, but I went with the Wildcat because it shouldered a huge burden early in the war, and still delivered in spite of it's clear disadvantages.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2009)

My opinion is the Zeke. It was the perfect combination of range, firepower, speed and agilty. In the hands of an experienced pilot it wasa very tough nut for the allies to deal with.

It had its design faults, chief among them being its structural weakness, and its lack of armour and self sealing tanks. It relied on agilty as substitutes for that, which was okay in 1942, but dated soon thereafter


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

Here is a performance comparison of the types you listed, plus the Ki-44-I as it might be relevant (and as it's certainly competitive).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

....


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 19, 2009)

Saw the graphs, also if miss the airacobra, i'm for the 0.


----------



## JAMF (Apr 19, 2009)

My vote is for the P-39 (D?). When used right, it had the fight. With it's speed advantage, it could make slashing attacks and be out of range shortly after, extend and repeat. That was the tactic used then against the japanese fighters.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi JAMF,

>My vote is for the P-39 (D?). When used right, it had the fight. With it's speed advantage, it could make slashing attacks and be out of range shortly after, extend and repeat. That was the tactic used then against the japanese fighters.

I guess I'll have to add the P-39D to the diagram, as it had some of the qualities you describe.

However, judging from what I heard from P-400 pilot MF Kirby, his outfit only planned on making one attack and then running for home. I'm not sure if it ever actually came to it - personally, he only fired his P-400's guns in anger at ground targets (or "at the trees of the New Guinean jungle", as he put it).

Your summary of tactics is pretty much what Kirby's unit used with the P-38, which they thought gave them a decisive edge over the Japanese. Kirby certainly had no confidence in the fighting abilities of the P-400, though one has to consider that during the war, the limits of the A6M's capabilities were not very well known. (P-40 pilot Clay Tice even told me that he never heard about the results and conclusions from the US testing of the captured Akutan Zero.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JAMF (Apr 19, 2009)

What do you use for the diagrams? I check with IL2Compare with v4.07 data, but dunno if it's close to reality, as it is only what Oleg thinks is the closest approximation and added some "gameplay balancing".

The P400 didn't have the extra power on tap as the P-39D had.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm not 100% sure but i think that P-39 and 40 were available until K variant in '42


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

I forgot about the Ki-44. Man, what a blunder. Does anyone know if you can add things to a poll?

Gaugreist, as for the Wildcat ....

The P40 was also shouldering a lot of fighting. I would consider the F4F to be inferior to the P40 solely because it was a carrier aircraft that had to compromise a lot on its design in order to be carrier capable. A great naval aircraft sure doesnt necessarily mean its "the top dog".

The P39 has some good atributes. Down low, its in its element. The 8th FG used it to good effect when they were stationed at Port Moresby. But Overall, I would put it as inferior to the Zero and Oscar (and Tojo). I'd even take a Hurricane over the P39.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

The P-40 for me. The "Zero" was a good a/c, but highly over rated in the early war, mostly due to the excellent caliber of pilots the Japanese had in the beginning. Once American pilots stopped using WW1 tactics and training then you can markedly see the improvement in use of the P-40. Chennaults' early fighter manual was right on target and should have been adhered to more widely. If it had it might have saved quite a few P-38's in 1943.

The P-40 was a great aircraft for the PTO in 41-42 with its armor, .50 cals, good speed, and roll rate. And in the right hands could dominate.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2009)

We many times tend to compare fighters in a fighter vs. fighter role.
But how do they stand against other targets, eg. how successful would be a fighter against a B-25 type of target? 
From that point of view, Zero would have much more trouble then Hurricane II or P-40E, since the .50cals would've make minced meat out of it. The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

I am going to have to go with the Zero here. I think that it was highly over rated and once aircraft such as the Hellcat and the Corsair were in service, she was obsolete.

But in 1942 she held the advantage, even if ever so slight.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> We many times tend to compare fighters in a fighter vs. fighter role.
> But how do they stand against other targets, eg. how successful would be a fighter against a B-25 type of target?
> From that point of view, Zero would have much more trouble then Hurricane II or P-40E, since the .50cals would've make minced meat out of it. The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.



In 1942, the Japanese were at a decided disadvantage against the B17. The 7mm machine guns were too puny to do much damage, and their 20MM wasn't fused correctly to cause the most amount of damage. Against the lightly armed B25's and B26's, the 20MM proved adequate to the task.

Remember too though, the Japanese did score regularly against the allied bombers.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am going to have to go with the Zero here. I think that it was highly over rated and once aircraft such as the Hellcat and the Corsair were in service, she was obsolete.
> 
> But in 1942 she held the advantage, even if ever so slight.



In this time frame of 1942, would you consider the Zero to be decidedly better than the F4F and marginally better than the P40 (with pilot skill equal)?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

I would consider the zero to be the most formidable (and feared) of the bunch in 1942... and at that time there still a lot of formidable IJN pilots to drive them. Independent of the performance the range was avery important factor. Much like the Mustang - it would 'do it' over our territory and do it well.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Independent of the performance the range was avery important factor. Much like the Mustang - it would 'do it' over our territory and do it well.



Agreed.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I forgot about the Ki-44. Man, what a blunder. Does anyone know if you can add things to a poll?


The Type 2 Fighter (aka Ki-44, but Japanese operating units almost never used the kitai number, to them it was Type 2 Fighter) saw very little action in 1942, just 9 pre-production models were used in combat trials by the 47th Independent Fighter Company in Burma. The AVG met them on a few occasions, but without any clear and notable results compared to those v. Type 1's. The first regular Type 2 unit to enter action was the 25th Regiment in China in July 1943. There's probably no reason to include the Type 2 as a 1942 PTO fighter if the P-38 is excluded. Actually P-38's flew missions in the Solomons and New Guinea late in 1942 besides in the Aleutians, but I don't disagree with excluding it as 'main' 1942 fighter. It also didn't have any great success in those early missions.

Among other basically later planes with brief debuts in 1942, a preproduction Type 3 (Tony) engaged one of the Doolittle raiders over Tokyo and the B-25 claimed to have downed one or more Bf109-looking fighters, (though it was an overclaim). And Type 2 Two Seat Fighters (Nick) were also encountered in Burma and China, though they weren't successful in their early daylight heavy fighter role.

The Buffalo saw quite a lot of action in 1942. I don't suppose anyone would vote it best, but OTOH the Hurricane and Buffalo combat records PTO '42 weren't a lot different, both poor. The Type 97 (Nate) was also widely used up to mid '42 and more successful than either Buffalo or Hurricane, though pretty clearly not best.

Best, as usual, is it which looks subjectively best based on performace stats (we can't always be sure are even correct)? or is it best combat results, though that will also include pilot and other factors? but OTOH it's completely tangible, did well or didn't. If it's combat results there's no reasonable question: the Zero, clearly the most successful fighter in the Pacific overall in 1942. 

After that it could debated between Type 1 (had generally similar success to the Zero, with exception of v. the AVG) or F4F (only Allied fighter to achieve ~1:1 kill ratio v the Zero, mainly second 1/2 of 1942, though it didn't match the smashing victories the Zero achieved in first 1/2 of '42). The P-40 and P-39, in the actual circumstances and actual USAAF units that flew them, were clearly less successful than the F4F was against the Zero in 1942, and the great majority of AVG fighter victims were Type 97's, they never met the JNAF. 

Joe


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Jamf,

>What do you use for the diagrams? 

Gnuplot for the diagrams, and OpenOffice Calc for the numbers.

You can find some examples of the analysis process behind these numbers in the "Technical" forum section, for example this one: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...d-corsair-vs-grumman-f6f-5-hellcat-17293.html

>I check with IL2Compare with v4.07 data, but dunno if it's close to reality, as it is only what Oleg thinks is the closest approximation and added some "gameplay balancing".

Not much of a difference in the approach then - except that I don't have to worry about gameplay issues 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Apr 19, 2009)

Re: Zeroes v B-17's the impression there seems to be influenced a lot by a few general statements by the Japanese about B-17's being hard to shoot down, which it was relatively. But if you look at the actual results, unescorted B-17's were not that survivable against Zeroes, not if the Zeroes had reasonable numbers and the opportunity to concentrate against the B-17's. For example at Midway, B-17's suffered fairly little from Zeroes while attacking the Japanese carriers June 4 '42, just some damage, though of course they also failed to hit any Japanese ships. But the Zero Combat Air Patrols had serious risk of having too many drawn up too high and missing a low altitude attack, or too many down low and missing a medium altitude attack (which is what happened eventually as USN dive bombers came in almost unopposed). But in a number of earlier encounters in Philippines and Dutch East Indies small B-17(and LB-30/B-24) formations suffered badly at the hands of Zeroes. The bomber claims to have downed Zeroes were vastly exaggerated; Zeroes never suffered really heavy losses attacking B-17's in 1942. And the Zero claims against the bombers were sometimes actually understated, because few of the B-17's crashed right then and there, they *were* relatively tough, but many never made it back to base.

Zeroes downed a large number of Allied non fighters in 1942 (relative to the scale of PTO air ops in 1942, which was smaller than many other theaters or later PTO), especially in the first half. If shooting down lots of non-fighters is included, it only makes the Zero the more obvious choice in the poll.

Joe


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.

Hm, the MG FF/M actually yielded pretty good firepower thanks to the highly effective mine shells if fired. You're right that the Japanese 20 mm Type 99/1 cannon was inferior to the MG FF/M, but that applies to quite a few other 20 mm cannon types as well.

You can find a more detailed firepower overview here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...mparison-machine-guns-light-cannon-17521.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Jamf,

>The P400 didn't have the extra power on tap as the P-39D had.

Interesting comment - what's the reason for this difference? And if you could suggest the power settings both types historically used in 1942, that would be most helpful 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

JoeB said:


> But in a number of earlier encounters in Philippines and Dutch East Indies small B-17(and LB-30/B-24) formations suffered badly at the hands of Zeroes. The bomber claims to have downed Zeroes were vastly exaggerated; Zeroes never suffered really heavy losses attacking B-17's in 1942. And the Zero claims against the bombers were sometimes actually understated, because few of the B-17's crashed right then and there, they *were* relatively tough, but many never made it back to base.
> 
> *True - but have to reflect that they were primarily D's - and the E's had much better defensive armament and self sealing tanks. There were only a few E's at Pearl Harbor and had just arrived on Dec 7. *
> 
> ...



The Zero 20mm were 'effective'


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> In this time frame of 1942, would you consider the Zero to be decidedly better than the F4F and marginally better than the P40 (with pilot skill equal)?



I think will all 3 of these aircraft it comes down to pilot skill. The main advantage I would give the F4F over the Zero would be survivability and armament. I however still believe that the Zero combined speed and maneuverability and the more experienced Japanese pilots (at the time) gave it the advantage.

Obviously the three main weak points of the Zero would be armament and the lack of self sealing fuel tanks as well as armor protection for the pilot.

By the time the Hellcat came out, the weakness of the Zero became very apparent.



drgondog said:


> I would consider the zero to be the most formidable (and feared) of the bunch in 1942... and at that time there still a lot of formidable IJN pilots to drive them. Independent of the performance the range was avery important factor. Much like the Mustang - it would 'do it' over our territory and do it well.



I think that sums it up very well.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

One of the downfalls of the "Zero" is it's fragileness. Hirikoshi Jiro stated; " For it to have high speed and superior dogfight performance, a light and
powerful engine would be needed. Since such a power plant was not
available, to my regret, in Japan at that time, it was necessary to design
the airplane so light that it defied common sense."

The main edge the Zero had over the Wildcat was its rate of climb. If the Wildcats had an altitude advantage then it was a great match for the A6M. The top speed of the Wildcat was slightly better then the Zero as well as the dive speed. If met at higher altitudes the two stage supercharger came in handy for the F4F.

At low speed manuevering the Zero is clearly better which leads to a tactical error on a Wildcat pilots part to even engage a Zero in a "turn and burn" engagement. A Zero could not dive with a F4F or a P-40 lest its wing fall off, and the armament was outclassed by the .50cal of the American a/c. The Wildcat was well armored and had self-sealing fuel tanks. The A6M2 wasn't and didn't. The Wildcat was far more ruggedly constructed than the lightweight Zero. I think the fierceness of the A6M came down only to tactics and the training of early war American pilots vs. the Japanese.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2009)

Sys, good poll. I voted for the A6M, mainly because it's long range allowed it to be places and consequently Japanese bombers could be places that no other combatant could match. On a one on one basis, the F4F, especially the F4F3 could match the Zero, but it did not have the seven league boots the A6M had.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 19, 2009)

I would say Bill has summed it up pretty much perfectly. Of all the fighters in theatre at around that time the Zero was the most feared and the most formidable whilst there were still good pilots to fly it and the Allies hadn't perfected strategy to overcome its weaknesses. For this I have voted for the Zero as well.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 19, 2009)

drgondog said:


> True - but have to reflect that they were primarily D's - and the E's had much better defensive armament and self sealing tanks. There were only a few E's at Pearl Harbor and had just arrived on Dec 7.


The initial B-17 force in the Philippines was 35 B-17D's (including C's that had been upgraded to D standard, which included self sealing fuel tanks), as were most of the a/c in Hawaii but the latter D's never saw combat except those hit in the PH raid itself. About 1/2 the initial PI force was destroyed on the ground the first day, the rest retreated to Dutch East Indies bases not many days after. In meantime a few were downed by Zeroes including famously Colin Kelly's a/c. But B-17E's were sent to reinforce them in the DEI, and it quickly became the predominant type, along with F's in the second half of '42. Most Zero victories in 1942 against B-17's were over B-17E/F's.

The US liked the E a lot better particularly for the tail guns to counter attacks from directly astern, perceived as the biggest weakness of the D's defenses. Many early Pacific E's were among those with the ineffective Bendix remote control belly turret, but it doesn't seem the Japanese exploited that much; by second half of '42 they tended to favor head on attacks, like the Germans. Anyway, small formations of B-17E's typical in the Pacific in 1942 sometimes suffered heavy % losses to Zeroes, and knocked down pretty few Zeroes themselves in reality. The Zero wasn't a top notch bomber destroyer by any means, compared to all WWII fighters, but it was often adequate against unescorted B-17E's.

PS: Renrich mentioned another very important area where the Zero outclassed any of the other fighters on the list (except the Type 1): range, and it was still longer legged than the Type 1. None the Allied fighters on the list were remotely close in range and that was a critical factor in a lot of the early Japanese operations especially by land based Zeroes. None of the Allied fighters on the list could possibly have conducted operations like Formosa>central Luzon, northern DEI>Java, Timor>Darwin, or Rabaul>Guadalcanal, not even close. P-38's only operated at those kind of ranges (and eventually longer ranges) much later on; even the 'very long range' P-38 interception of Yamamoto's plane in April '43 was nothing much range-wise for a Zero Model 21, predominant type in 1942.

Joe


----------



## JAMF (Apr 19, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Jamf,
> 
> >The P400 didn't have the extra power on tap as the P-39D had.
> 
> ...


Well, maybe I was thinking of the difference between the P-400 and the P-39D-2, as it had the -65 (E6) Allison compared to the -33/35 (E4), giving another 175HP. I can't find much info, but as the 400 was the export version, maybe it was castrated like the export lightning was, with the turbo removed?

In IL2 I certainly preferred the P-400 though, with it's higher rate of fire. I was having a field day flying through A6M2-N's, extending, then flying back. 

As for the poll, I just read "best fighter", not "which fighter had the biggest advantage, taking into account the reputation". Not even touching the point that it doesn't say dogfighter.

A shame it doesn't include the 38.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 19, 2009)

JAMF said:


> A shame it doesn't include the 38.


Remember that the P-38 wasn't available theater-wide in 1942


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Remember that the P-38 wasn't available theater-wide in 1942



That's why I didn't include it for 1942. It was not available in enough numbers to be pertinent. And Alaska didn't have enough air to air actions for which to draw a conclusion.

Wait untill Poll #2. 

One thing to remember about the Zero, was its annoying tendency to lose maneuverablity at higher speeds. A P40 keeping its speed up was going to stay out of trouble (if its pilot was competent).

I also dont think the P39 had enough of a speed margin over the Zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Remember that the P-38 wasn't available theater-wide in 1942


The P-38 did not engage in any actions until late December, 1942.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Jamf,

>Well, maybe I was thinking of the difference between the P-400 and the P-39D-2, as it had the -65 (E6) Allison compared to the -33/35 (E4), giving another 175HP. 

Ah, thanks, I'll check that out. I thought that maybe the P-400 had an automatic boost regulator while the P-39 was throttled manually, which seems to have made some difference with certain P-40 or P-51 models as manual throttling allowed exceeding the specified boost limits - not sure where or what I read about it.

>As for the poll, I just read "best fighter", not "which fighter had the biggest advantage, taking into account the reputation". 

Roger that, I was just trying to add an additional perspective, not criticizing your tactical suggestions which I think were pretty good advice on how to exploit a performance advantage! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

I'd go for the F4F, just for survivability(?), armament and self sealing tanks....


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The initial B-17 force in the Philippines was 35 B-17D's (including C's that had been upgraded to D standard, which included self sealing fuel tanks), as were most of the a/c in Hawaii but the latter D's never saw combat except those hit in the PH raid itself. About 1/2 the initial PI force was destroyed on the ground the first day, the rest retreated to Dutch East Indies bases not many days after. In meantime a few were downed by Zeroes including famously Colin Kelly's a/c. But B-17E's were sent to reinforce them in the DEI, and it quickly became the predominant type, along with F's in the second half of '42. Most Zero victories in 1942 against B-17's were over B-17E/F's.
> 
> *My comments were solely about PI and Java campaigns. All of the ~ 150+ B-17s sent to Pacific before December 7,1941 were B-17C/D with C's upgraded to D's. You are right that the self sealing tanks were introduced earlier - actually the C IIRC. The 19th BG took B-17C/D's to PI and D/E spares were drawn from 5th and 11th (i am pretty sure but not 100% on this) at Hawaii to backfill attrition in DEI. The campaign only lasted two months before withdrawal. Joe Braugher's site shows about same number C/D's lost in Java as E's.
> 
> ...


agreed


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

Rhetorical question for all of you:

"WHo thinks the Wildcat was overrated"? 

My personal opinion is it got a lot of press for the victories it got in the carrier battles of 1942.

But if it went head to head with Oscars or Zero's over (or near) a Japanese base, it might not have been so good. At Guadalcanal, the Zero's were at a disadvantage where even lightly damaged aircraft were lost because they were so far away from the nearest Japanese held airfields.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Rhetorical question for all of you:
> 
> "WHo thinks the Wildcat was overrated"?
> 
> ...


as a carrier aircraft she was great bird I wonder how much her carrier gear affects her performance certainly second best in the world the Zero being first for that era.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

I think that it did what it was designed to do brilliantly for its time; land on carriers. It was a bit outclassed by its counterpart, the Zero if the F4F pilot reverted to dogfighting like he was probably taught to do in training. A Warhawk was a better a/c but it could not land on an aircraft carrier.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> "WHo thinks the Wildcat was overrated"?
> 
> My personal opinion is it got a lot of press for the victories it got in the carrier battles of 1942.
> 
> But if it went head to head with Oscars or Zero's over (or near) a Japanese base, it might not have been so good. At Guadalcanal, the Zero's were at a disadvantage where even lightly damaged aircraft were lost because they were so far away from the nearest Japanese held airfields.


But overrated compared to what? Again I'd say the Zero is the choice for most successful or effective fighter in the PTO in 1942 overall.

But even if the F4F did have more often than not a tactical advantage over Zeroes at Guadalcanal, other Allied types in the similar situations did worse. In most of the early Pacific campaigns land based Zeroes were using their long range against Allied fighters which were much closer to base. And that wasn't all disadvantage for the Zero: its bases were hardly ever under threat from escorted bombing raids (Lae in New Guinea was the exception), whereas the Allied fighter bases (including Henderson field, the usual target of escorted raids v. G'canal) were.

An example is USAAF P-40's defending Darwin against Zeroes in spring/summer 1942. They had radar warning, and the Zeroes were coming from 500 miles away, but the P-40's scored about 1:2. F4F's over G'canal achieved about 1:1, not a minor difference.

Also, in some Guadalcanal missions the Zeroes weren't coming from Rabaul. Later in the Guadalcanal campaign Zeroes were based at Buin 300-some miles from Henderson not so far for a Zero, a few fights were against Japanese carrier raids v Hendersion, and some were F4F's escorting strikes north up the Solomons. And in the 4 carrier battles USN carrier based F4F's also held their own against Zeroes. The F4F results didn't vary dramatically just depending on the scenario. In fact the best success ever by the Zero (or any other fighter) v. the Wildcat occurred while flying all the way from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, the first combat there Aug 7 '42, 2 Zeroes and 9 F4F's lost. So I don't see how the F4F is overrated among Allied fighters in PTO in 1942; it did what no other (significant*) Allied fighter did in 1942: come out even against the Zero overall.

Later in the war the FM-2 was definitely not overrated because the Wildcat as a general type was widely viewed as obsolescent, yet the FM-2 had excellent results against Japanese fighters, even later types, statistically actually better than that of F6F and F4U, though it *was* obsolescent in terms of its slow speed as an interceptor.

*we're excluding the relatively few P-38 missions in late 1942, and actually the P-38 didn't necessarily achieve 1:1 real ratio in those early combats; and by statistical fluke the P-35 could be argued to have done better in the Philippines, since no P35 was actually shot down outright by a Zero, a number were shot *up* by Zeroes but all reached base safely and were potentially repairable, whereas 1 Zero was downed by a P-35, confirmed in Japanese accounts.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Apr 19, 2009)

drgondog said:


> My comments were solely about PI and Java campaigns. All of the ~ 150+ B-17s sent to Pacific before December 7,1941 were B-17C/D with C's upgraded to D's.
> 
> In all the 5th, 7th, 11 and 19th were the only B-17 Groups in the PTO during PI and Java campaigns but only 30+ of the force that went to Java in January were E's.


But if even if limiting it to PI and DEI, it's as follows:
-the initial OOB of the FEAF on Luzon was 35 B-17D's. None of the C/D's in Hawaii or elsewhere ever saw combat, except those destroyed in the PH raid.

-17 of those FEAF planes were destroyed on the ground in the intitial Japanese bombing raids Dec 8.

-a total of 48 B-17E's were sent to the DEI by the end of that campaign end Feb 1942 (see Salecker "Fortress Against the Sun"), some came across the Pacific, some via Atlantic>Africa>India. 16 were evacuated successfully, rest lost, mainly on ground or damaged then dest to prevent capture (at least one was restored to flying condition by the Japanese, along with a B-17D salvaged in PI). Others were operational in Australia same time period.

So the B-17E was the main model in actual combat even pretty early on. The last B-17D combat mission was Feb 11, after which a handful survived as second line a/c in Australia. After that all B-17 ops in Pacific were E/F (except the single B-17B used in the Aleutians).

B-17 aerial combat victories/losses through DEI, AFAIK, were:
12/7: 2 B-17C's w/o from damage in air by Zeroes, PH, besides ground losses
12/10: 1 B-17D damaged by Army Type 97, flew to Australia, cannibalized; 1 B-17D downed by Zeroes (Colin Kelly's a/c); 1 B-17D downed a Type 97
12/14: 2*B-17D written off, dam by Zeroes, claimed 8-11 Zero, no J loss
12/25": 2*B-17D retired from combat Zero damage claim 2, no J loss
1/17: B-17E damaged then finished off by strafing, clm 7, no J loss
1/25: B-17E shot up but eventually repaired 3 others run out of gas, clm 2 Zeroes and actually downed 2, first actual B-17 victories v Zeroes
1/29: B-17E downed, clms 6, 1 Zero lost
2/3: B-17E downed
2/8: 3*B-17E downed or written off, clm 5 Zeroes, 2 Zeroes act. damaged
2/19: B-17E written off from damage, aerial combat with Japanese bombers

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2009)

Joe .... the P40's based in Port Moresby flying in the 2nd half of 1942 did far better than the ones based on Darwin. As the "lessons learned" were rammed home to the newer pilots, their effectiveness went up.

And I still think the Wildcat, based as a land fighter was still inferior to the P40.

drgondog ..... as for the belly turret for the B17 ..... I have read in several books that they were essentially rendered useless when the bomber took off from a muddy field. Unless the pilot could find a rain shower to fly through, then there was little anyone could do to wipe the mud off of the windows. I believe all B17's and B24's arriving in theater (after summer 1942) with ball turrets, had them removed and tunnel gun setups were used instead.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 20, 2009)

Joe, do have a list of Japanese losses for the Port Moresby and Milne Bay battles?


----------



## eddie_brunette (Apr 20, 2009)

P40 for me  

Good Armament
Good Roll Rate
Good Armor
Good Diving
Good Zoom
Good Turn

After years and years of reading on warbirds, the one thing I realised about the '40 is that it was "quite good" at everything it did, not exceptional, but good and for me that is enough if I had to choose between planes with:
No armor, but good zoom climb
Good turn circle, but slow roll rate
Lots of armor, but slow climb etc.etc.

For me the best of all the warplanes in the PTO is by FAR the P38, but ill wait for the next polls! And the most beautiful of the above mention planes is the Oscar. Really really pretty plane

edd


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2009)

Ive heard mixed things about the Hurricanes fighting in Burma.

Anyone have some reliable info on how they actually performed?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 20, 2009)

JoeB said:


> But if even if limiting it to PI and DEI, it's as follows:
> -the initial OOB of the FEAF on Luzon was 35 B-17D's. None of the C/D's in Hawaii or elsewhere ever saw combat, except those destroyed in the PH raid.
> 
> *I am pretty sure the survivors that went to Australia combat ops in Australia after DEI - the Swoose comes to mind but I think there were some D's out of Hawaii and Midway during the Midway battles from 11th BG. I do not know that D's went to New Guinea for Battle Bismark with 5th BG or not*
> ...



Joe - I fear I am nit-picking but here is the C/D list by serial number (incomplete and with some errors) for the 5th, 11th and 19th BG - 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1940.html40-3059/3100

B-17C 
2045 (30th BS, 19th BG) shot down by fighters Dec 10, 1941 Luzon, Philippines. Colin P. Kelly killed.
2048 (19th BG) strafed on ground at Clark Field, Dec 8, 1941.
2049 (38th RS, 11th BG) damaged during approach to Bellows Field, Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941. Not repaired, and used as spares source. 
2054 was one of the planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941.
2062 (93rd BS, 19th BG) shot down 10 mi S of Malang, Java Feb 3, 1942.
2063 (38th RS, 11th BG) w/o Langley Field May 29, 1943. It was one of the planes that arrived	over Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941.
2067 (19th BG) destroyed Clark Field, Philippines Dec 8, 1941. 
2070 destroyed Hickam Field, Oahu, HI Dec 7, 1941. 
2072 (19th BG) heavily damaged on Davao mission Dec 25, 1941 and converted into transport. With 46thTroop Carrier Squadron, 317th Transport Group, crashed Bakers Creek, Queensland, Australia, June 14, 1943 while ferrying troops to New Guinea. Six crew and 34 GIs killed. One survived. 2074 was one of the planes that arrived over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. Hit byJapanese gunfire while attempting to land at Wheeler Field, setting its
magnesium flare box on fire. 
2077 (c/n 2078) upgraded to B-17D standard Jan 1941. Strafed on ground at
Hickam Field Dec 7, 1941. Salvaged Dec 8, 1941



B-17D Fortress in PTO

3059 (19th 
3060 (11th BG)
3061 (11th BG, 21st BS) destroyed at Malang, Feb 28, 1942.
3062 (19th BG) destroyed in Philippines
3064 (19th BG) crashed overshooting strip at Malang, Java Jan 17, 1942. Crew survived.
3066 (19th BG)
3067 (5th BG) crashed on takeoff from Batchelor Field, N. T. Australia Jan 28, 1942.
3068 (19th BG) 

3069 (19th BG)
3070 (19th BG)
3071 (5th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3072 (19th BG)
3073 (c/n 2101) assigned to 19th BG at Del Monte Field, Philippines. 
Attacked by enemy fighters and force landed in center of rice paddy on Masbate Island Mar 1942.
3074 (19th BG) strafed and burned at Singoaasri, Java Feb 3, 1942.
3075 (19th BG)
3076 (19th BG)
3077 (11th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3078 (19th BG) strafed and burned as Singoaasri, Java Feb 3, 1942
3079 (19th BG) crashlanded and wrecked Daly Waters Northern Territory, Australia Mar 14, 1942. One crew member killed.
3080 (5th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3081 (11th BG) 
3082 (5th BG)
3083 (11th BG) destroyed at Hickam Field, Dec 7, 1941
3084 (11th BG) 
3085 (5th BG)
3086 (19th BG)
3087 (19th BG)
3088 (19th BG)
3089 (5th BG, 11th BG) lost at sea Oct 21, 1942, central Pacific. 
3090 (c/n 2118) w/o in accident Sep 11, 1942 at Kuaon Field, HI
3091 (19th BG) damaged in Philippines Dec 10, 1941. Flow to Australia but considered uneconomical to repair and converted to components.
3092 (5th BG)
3093 (19th BG)
3094 (19th BG)
3095 (11th BG, 61st BS) wrecked at Clark Field and restored to flyable status by Japanese.
3096 (19th BG)
3097 (19th BG, *Swoose*) only known US military aircraft to have flown a combat mission on the first day of US entry into WW II and to remain in continuous military flying service throughout the conflict. Original user was 19th BG. 
3098 (19th BG)
3099 (19th BG)
3100 (19th BG)

Note that the 5th was at Midway - I do not know if enough B-17s were in PTO to equip the 5th, the 7th, the 11th and 19th by June but the 19th continued combat ops with last remaining C/D's (including Swoose until it became WW and given to MacArthur) in Australia.

The 5th was at Midway and the 11th went to the New Guinea and the Solomons at Guadalcanal.

There is woefully little info on 'last combat mission' of the B-17C/D but it was after DEI .


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

The A6M3 Hamp for me, but it was gradually loosing its dominance by that point. The A6M5 was the best version, but it didn't see service until mid 1943.


----------



## JoeB (Apr 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I am pretty sure the survivors that went to Australia combat ops in Australia after DEI
> 
> Note that the 5th was at Midway - I do not know if enough B-17s were in PTO to equip the 5th, the 7th, the 11th and 19th by June but the 19th continued combat ops with last remaining C/D's (including Swoose until it became WW and given to MacArthur) in Australia.
> 
> ...


Again I'd recommend "Fortress Against the Sun" by Gene Salecker. He gives which specific a/c were on pretty much every mission of B-17's in the Pacific. I'd trust this info more than guessing based on less complete sources.

The FEAF B-17D's 'retired' to Australia became transports and trainers, he discusses each a/c specifically, Swoose and the others.

Likewise he discusses in detail the inventory of the groups in Hawaii as of Midway. They still had a few earlier B-17's, but all the a/c on actual combat missions from Midway against the Japanese ships were B-17E's, he specifies for each flight.

So given all the details he provides I don't see a reason to doubt Salecker's statement that the last B-17D combat mission was Feb 11 1942.

And the losses I gave to air action are also case by case correlating his book and Bloody Shambles, again I would take that over general references to 'desroyed' in Joe Baugher lists. Other B-17's were destroyed by enemy action, but on the ground (at PH and Java, as well as Philippines), and I'm not including planes damaged in the air and subsequently repaired or destroyed on the ground or to prevent capture, unless it was one continuous sequence (like the January 17 case, Japanese fighters chased a B-17 to where it force landed, then finished it off with strafing). I'm also not including a loss of an a/c flying from Australia v Rabaul before the end of the DEI campaign, just PH, PI and DEI campaigns.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Joe .... the P40's based in Port Moresby flying in the 2nd half of 1942 did far better than the ones based on Darwin. As the "lessons learned" were rammed home to the newer pilots, their effectiveness went up.


Do you have a source for that, which apropo to Wildcat's question gives the actual Japanese losses combat by combat? 

Lacking a source describing the actual combats from both sides, and knowing they were fairly few, I haven't concluded anything about that period. From the list of pilot KIA's in Hata/Izawa's "Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of WWII", I count 7 pilot KIA's in the period of USAAF P-40 ops in NG in 1942, ie after September 17, very small compared to their losses at Guadalcanal in that period. At least 1 of those I recognize offhand as being in a combat with 8th FG P-39's, Dec 7. Incomplete info (that I have) and it seems like a small sample. JAAF fighters also started operations in NG in late December, as did USAAF P-38's, a few combats at the end of the year involved one or both of those.

The Darwin P-40 plus Port Moresby P-39's pre Guadalcanal is two similar a/c in a much larger sample, and consistent inferiority to the Zeroes, something like 1:2. But even that benefited from lessons learned, in DEI campaign were the ratio against the P-40 was much worse than that. The F4F's don't seem to have had any period of consistent inferiority.

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> Do you have a source for that, which apropo to Wildcat's question gives the actual Japanese losses combat by combat?
> 
> Lacking a source describing the actual combats from both sides, and knowing they were fairly few, I haven't concluded anything about that period. From the list of pilot KIA's in Hata/Izawa's "Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of WWII", I count 7 pilot KIA's in the period of USAAF P-40 ops in NG in 1942, ie after September 17, very small compared to their losses at Guadalcanal in that period. At least 1 of those I recognize offhand as being in a combat with 8th FG P-39's, Dec 7. Incomplete info (that I have) and it seems like a small sample. JAAF fighters also started operations in NG in late December, as did USAAF P-38's, a few combats at the end of the year involved one or both of those.
> 
> ...



I have a 8th FG unit history that mentions that once the allies had a reliable way of knowing when the Japanese were coming, they could get up in the air and get some altitude. By the end of the year [Dec 31 1942] they had a rough 1:1 loss ration. Since the P40 was far better than the P39, it should have had a better ratio.

Dont forget that as the Guadalcanal campaign unfolded, the IJN stayed at Rabaul and began to turn things over to the IJA in NG.


----------



## varsity078740 (Apr 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The initial B-17 force in the Philippines was 35 B-17D's (including C's that had been upgraded to D standard, which included self sealing fuel tanks), as were most of the a/c in Hawaii but the latter D's never saw combat except those hit in the PH raid itself. About 1/2 the initial PI force was destroyed on the ground the first day, the rest retreated to Dutch East Indies bases not many days after. In meantime a few were downed by Zeroes including famously Colin Kelly's a/c. But B-17E's were sent to reinforce them in the DEI, and it quickly became the predominant type, along with F's in the second half of '42. Most Zero victories in 1942 against B-17's were over B-17E/F's.
> 
> The US liked the E a lot better particularly for the tail guns to counter attacks from directly astern, perceived as the biggest weakness of the D's defenses. Many early Pacific E's were among those with the ineffective Bendix remote control belly turret, but it doesn't seem the Japanese exploited that much; by second half of '42 they tended to favor head on attacks, like the Germans. Anyway, small formations of B-17E's typical in the Pacific in 1942 sometimes suffered heavy % losses to Zeroes, and knocked down pretty few Zeroes themselves in reality. The Zero wasn't a top notch bomber destroyer by any means, compared to all WWII fighters, but it was often adequate against unescorted B-17E's.
> 
> ...



The remote control lower turret on early E models was a Sperry.

Duane


----------



## renrich (Apr 21, 2009)

On the question of whether the F4F was overrated, I can't add much to Joe's post except to say that, to the average history student, the F4F may have been underrated as the Zero had such a fearsome reputation. The F4F4 was a flawed design, compared to the F4F3 and FM2 and yet it held it's own against the Zero although it's short range makes me rate it behind the A6M. I rate the F4F above the P40, mainly because the P40 had such a terrible ROC. It would be interesting to compare, if possible, the relative success of the P40 V F4F at Guadalcanal. I believe that they served together for a while. The P400 and P39 certainly served together with the F4F4 and there is no doubt which was most effective.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 21, 2009)

This is a great poll / thread. I haven't voted yet because I cannot pull the trigger for one yet.

The Zero was very good, but I think the Japanese better knew what tactics to use with thier aircraft, thus making it appear better.

The opposite is the P-40. It is overall really better in my opinion, except for the crucial climb and altitude capability. I have to try to get by my bias for realy loving the Warhawk. And opposite the Zero, the USAAC tactics were unknown and caused the P-40 to look worse on a stat sheet.

Similar situation for the Airacobra. But no matter how much I like the plane, the P-40 was definatley better. And I really cannot recall any WWII American pilot claiming a true love for the Airacobra.

That leads me to my current front runner, the F4f Wildcat. It was slower than the Curtiss or Bell, maybe a little faster than the Zero.(or equal ) But it had altitude ability that the other American fighters did not. I think it caused the most damage to the enemy as compared to the Army fighters. But that may be more of better tactics than aircraft performance.

I will ponder more on this, and will likely be influenced by some more cases put forth by the posters here.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 21, 2009)

on wildcat speed, see the graphs in first page, for true was slowest either army fighters either type 0 (or i think ~equal with 0 model 21)


----------



## claidemore (Apr 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> I rate the F4F above the P40, mainly because the P40 had such a terrible ROC.



I don't see much difference in ROC between those two planes. P40B/C "initial" climb rate 2600 ft/min, P40E 2100ft/min. The P40K took 7.5 minutes to 15000 feet, which would mean an inital climb rate greater than 2000ft/min. 
F4F-3 2050 ft/min, F4F-4 1950 ft/min. 

HoHun?? In looking at your climb rates on page 1 of this thread, you have the P40E at 16m/s at sea level (3149 ft/min). All the stats I've seen list the P40E as 2100 ft/min. You have the F4F at 2952 ft/min and it's usually listed around 2000 ft/min. 
Is this because you based your calculations on max combat power settings?


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> 1. I have a 8th FG unit history that mentions that once the allies had a reliable way of knowing when the Japanese were coming, they could get up in the air and get some altitude. By the end of the year [Dec 31 1942] they had a rough 1:1 loss ration. Since the P40 was far better than the P39, it should have had a better ratio.
> 
> 2. Dont forget that as the Guadalcanal campaign unfolded, the IJN stayed at Rabaul and began to turn things over to the IJA in NG.


1. The key is whether it reflects the actual Japanese losses, not what was claimed. Otherwise it's a complete apples to oranges comparison with the numbers I gave, which are what each side actually lost. If they only *claimed* 1:1, the actual result could be predicted to have been much worse than that, given the overclaim rate by the P-40 and P-39 units in DEI, Australia, and early NG. In fact I'm surprised their claims would be only 1:1 at that stage; that doesn't sound right, actually. 

Also in actual results where both sides losses are known the P-40 didn't do far better than the P-39. The contemporary Darwin P-40 and Port Moresby P-39 results were about the same, based on actual Japanese losses, in a reasonably large sample of combats.

2. The first JAAF fighter unit in the Solomons/NG, the Type 1 equipped 11th Sentai, arrived at Rabaul December 18. According to Hata/Izawa it flew its first combat mission over NG, near Buna December 25, but it's probably the same combat by 9th FS P-40's same place given as December 26 in Hess "Pacific Sweep" (11th claimed 6 for loss of 2, 9th FS claimed 7 for loss of 1, if it does match the P-40's prevailed that day but it shows how you can't compare claimed and actual results). The 11th also flew missions over Guadalcanal from January. JAAF in S/SW Pacific was basically a 1943 thing.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Apr 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> Again I'd recommend "Fortress Against the Sun" by Gene Salecker. He gives which specific a/c were on pretty much every mission of B-17's in the Pacific. I'd trust this info more than guessing based on less complete sources.
> 
> The FEAF B-17D's 'retired' to Australia became transports and trainers, he discusses each a/c specifically, Swoose and the others.
> 
> ...



Joe - the records of that period are not exhaustive - B-17E's were incredibly scarce and priorities were moving them to Europe rather than Pacific, particularly as the B-24 was already deemed a better choice. The 5th AF fought with what it had and they used the B-17D's until they fell apart - sometime before Midway but after DEI... all staged out of Australia.

The 7th BG was merged into the 19th on March 14, bringing the compliment to more E's than D's

We can agree to disagree on Feb 11 or even DEI as the last of B-17D combat ops and go on our separate ways on this subject.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Apr 21, 2009)

Page 597, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," Climb Comparisons, The P40E at normal power took 21 minutes to climb to 25000 feet and 15 minutes to climb to 20000 feet. The F4F3 at normal power took 9.5 minutes to climb to 20000 feet and the F4F4 took 12.5 minutes to 20000 feet, still better than the P40E. That inability to climb to the altitude where the Japanese bombers were in a hurry was a handicap. One has to be careful in comparing rates of climb because they need to be compared at same power setting and SL rate of climb often does not tell the whole story. Later P40s had better rates of climb but so did the FM2.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 21, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>HoHun?? In looking at your climb rates on page 1 of this thread, you have the P40E at 16m/s at sea level (3149 ft/min). All the stats I've seen list the P40E as 2100 ft/min. 

Good catch, thanks! I was still listing the P-40E at 56" Hg erreneously (as I had made a mistake modifying an existing Gnuplot script for the PTO/CBI comparison).

The curve for the P-40E at 44" Hg does in fact yield 11.22 m/s at sea level, which converts to 2209 fpm, so that it's fairly close to the 2100 fpm you expected.

>You have the F4F at 2952 ft/min and it's usually listed around 2000 ft/min. 

As one or two Grumman fans have requested in other threads, I've begun to include the the lighter and better performing F4F-3 into the comparisons instead of the heavier F4F-4. 

BuAer data for the F4F-4 at Military power at a weight of 7975 lbs is 2480 rpm (12.6 m/s). The lighter F4F-3 is obviously going to climb more rapidly, so my calculated 15 m/s figure looks good. Of course, if you have data specific for the F4F-3, it would be valuable for cross-checking my calculation.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 21, 2009)

Hi again,

As power available also has an impact on turn rate, here the turn rate chart again with the P-40E at 44" Hg as advertised.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2009)

varsity078740 said:


> The remote control lower turret on early E models was a Sperry.


The successful manned belly turret in later B-17E's and all F's and G's was Sperry. The early unsuccessful remote control one was made by Bendix.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The successful manned belly turret in later B-17E's and all F's and G's was Sperry. The early unsuccessful remote control one was made by Bendix.
> 
> Joe



The Swamp Ghost > Photographs - Lower Bendix Turret


----------



## HoHun (Apr 21, 2009)

Hi Mike,

>That leads me to my current front runner, the F4f Wildcat. It was slower than the Curtiss or Bell, maybe a little faster than the Zero.(or equal ) But it had altitude ability that the other American fighters did not. 

Hm, actually in the scope of the comparison, we're comparing the US planes to the A6M3 which had a two-speed supercharger drive that gave it a much higher top speed at altitutde than the A6M2 with its single-speed supercharger. The difference is really a bit like that between Spitfire V and Spitfire IX 

The A6M3 according to my calculation is as fast as or even faster than most Allied fighters it faced in 1942, except for a narrow mid-altitude band (the "valley" between the two supercharger speeds' power peaks) where the P-40 is somewhat better because it has its power peak right there.

You're spot on with regard to the F4F-3's altitude capability, tough. Above 9 km, it surpasses in the P-40E in every aspect of performance, including speed. Unfortunately, the A6M3 still surpasses the F4F-3 by a similar margin ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## JoeB (Apr 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> 1. I will get Fortress in the Sun.
> 
> 2. Having said that - Odyssey of a B-17 The Swoose - by Herbert Brownstein contradicts Salecker by stating that the remnant (a 'dozen') survivors of 19th BG DEI retired to Australia and continued combat ops - headquartered at Mareeta - and flew missions against northern New Guinea targets and Rabaul - staging out of New Guinea. May 6 appears to be the approximate date the Swoose became a Ferry ship. Clearly this book contradicts Salecker's assertion that no more B-17D's were used in combat after February 11.
> 
> ...


1. You'll see how specific the info is, and how I'm not inferring much but rather how he gives the specific a/c tail numbers.

2. There's no contradiction because all but 3 of those a/c were B-17E's, ones the 19th had received already as replacements prior to end of DEI campaign. Salecker gives the fate of each of the 35 original B-17D's in the FEAF, and no more pre-E's were sent out to Australia as replacements, all replacements were E's. Only 3 of the D's still survived by the end of February:
40-2072: redesignated transport after combat damage 12/25, final fate unk.
40-3079: redesignated transport, lost in accident at Daily Waters, Australia March 14
40-3097: originally "Ole Betsy", sent to Australia for overhaul in January, received all 4 engines and the tail from 40-3091, renamed "The Swoose", half swan/half goose. Saw no more combat (as in bombing) missions, Salecker footnotes this to Brownstein's book.
(also the Japanese restored 40-3095 to flying condition)

The other 26 B-17's in Australia at the beginning of March, right after evacuation of Java, were all E's: 16 evacuated from Java (he lists the serial numbers in a footnote), and 10 of the 14th Recon Sdn (of 12 originally assigned to Naval TF 11, then redesignated 40th RS in April). That unit began raids against Rabaul Feb 22, while the Java campaign was winding down. 

"Soleil Levant sur l'Australie" by Bernard Baeza, which covers all Japanese and Allied combat air ops against and from Australia also says of the 19th BG that by March the few pre-E models were no longer used on combat missions but for transport and liaison.

3. The B-17 which picked up MacArthur was, per Salecker and other sources, was 41-2447, San Antonio Rose II, a B-17E; as was 41-2429, the other plane on that mission, both of the 19th BG.

4. The statement about E's only equipping the 19th from March is clearly wrong from a variety of sources and photo's showing them in Java, a/c assigned to both 7th and 19th BG there (7th later absorbed into 19th). Salecker's statement of Feb 11 as last B-17D combat, as in bombing, mission is footnoted to a primary record "Diary, 19th BG in Java". And by March Swoose wasn't an example of a B-17D but one of only two left in the theater. 

5. So, if it hinges on transport missions to Port Moresby being 'combat' then the 2 B-17D transports which survived after March may have flown 'combat missions'. What the 19th's diary and Salecker clearly mean is bombing missions, and I don't see evidence those handful of D's were used after Feb 11 on bombing missions, with Salecker and Baeza both saying they weren't, and Salecker also detailing the missions against Rabaul in spring 1942, by B-17E's.

Joe


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 22, 2009)

HoHun, we are on the same page as far as the F4F and Zero , I think. I was comparing the F4F to the American Army fighters in that one paragraph.

Can you make a graph or chart of the combat radius or range of each of these aircraft? I know the Zero would be king here, I would be curious how the others compared to each other.

I think the range of the Zero made it a good offensive weapon. Coupled by the fact that the American Army fighters were slow to climb, it only gave the Japanese a greater advantage......unless the Wildcat was on scene. 

That being said, I think the better overall speed of the P-40 and P-39 and better diving abilities gave them the advantage in an escort type role, where they were with dive bombers or level bombers. Even with the poorer altitude capabilities of the Warhawk or Airacobra, once a fight was engaged in an escort situation, the altitude of the scrap would likely lower and I think the advantage favors the U.S. Army fighters.


----------



## renrich (Apr 22, 2009)

The P39 because of it's short range and poor altitude performance was hopeless as an escort fighter in the Pacific. It's only real use was as a ground attack fighter bomber. The Wildcat was a better escort fighter than either Army fighter because of overall performance at altitude. The P400, because of oxygen system problems could not even be used above 15000 feet.


----------



## claidemore (Apr 22, 2009)

Hi HoHun,
The climb rates for the F4F-3 were still bothering me, so as you suggested I looked for some other documents to shed some light on it. Found the attached pdf. (primary source document! woohoo!  )
F4F-3 (no 1845) with two .30 fuselage guns and two .50s, weighing in at a very light 6262 lbs shows initial climb about 12.7 m/s while the heavier (no 1848 ) with 4 wing .50s @7300 lbs shows about 10.4 m/s.


----------



## renrich (Apr 22, 2009)

Page 473, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," "the fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate of the early F4F3 was over 3300 FPM at SL, very sprightly performance for the time." This was with military power. That is Mfr. data and at a weight of 7150 pounds. That is with 360 pounds of ammo and 660 pounds of fuel in what is called fighter mission load. I believe that is with SS tanks and some armor.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 22, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>The climb rates for the F4F-3 were still bothering me, so as you suggested I looked for some other documents to shed some light on it. Found the attached pdf. (primary source document! woohoo!  )

Wow, good find!  That illuminates the F4F better than what I had before!

>F4F-3 (no 1845) with two .30 fuselage guns and two .50s, weighing in at a very light 6262 lbs shows initial climb about 12.7 m/s while the heavier (no 1848 ) with 4 wing .50s @7300 lbs shows about 10.4 m/s.[/QUOTE]

Hehe, if I plug a constant 1000 HP and 7300 lbs weight into my calculation and then select the speed for best climb, I get 10.39 m/s at high gear full throttle height  But I won't claim my calculation is accurate to 0.1 %, the good fit owes a lot to coincedence.

Why was I comparing the climb rate at high gear full throttle height? Well, let's examine the four diagrams for No. 1848:

Upper left hand: Climb rate, supposed to be constant below high gear full throttle height, as can be cross-checked by the perfectly straight time to altitude graph in the same diagram. Note: The two-stage, two-speed R-1820-76 with its ability to bypass the auxiliary stage supercharger at low altitude would realistically have a three-step climb graph. Someone has added such a three-step chart with faint pencil lines, and though it's not really legible, it looks as if he has labelled the addition "BuAer", indicating that he was possibly taking his data from the Buereau of Aeronautics Aircraft Characteristics Sheet.

Upper right hand: Engine power curve in the vicinity of high gear full throttle height, with rated power indicated as 1000 HP. As the full throttle height (critical altitude in US terminology) is that given for the top speed case in the main text of the report, this is obviously with ram effect, and the difference to the upper left hand diagram for the climb case is thus explained. Note: The test aircraft did only indicate 981 HP instead of 1000 HP on the torque meter in flight, as pointed out in the main text of the report.

Lower left hand: Speed at high gear full throttle height as a function of power. The main text gives the top speed of No. 1848 as 330 mph, but here we can see that the test aircraft with 981 HP apparently achieved only 329 mph. That might look like cheating, but remember that the engineers were not trying to find out the peculiarities of No. 1848, but rather how a typical F4F-3 with the engine power exactly on specs (or perfectly average, as it was normal for engines to have a bit more or less power than specified) performed. 

On the bottom right hand, we see the airspeed indicator calibration curve which is not terribly interesting for us right now.

Going back to the upper left hand diagram, we can conclude now that it is a generic diagram for the engine operating at a constant power of 1000 HP as measured by the torque meter, which would require the engine to be throttled back in supercharger low gear, and not be operated at constant manifold pressure even in high gear, as it was the practice in combat.

The only point where military power and test power coincede is at high-gear full throttle height, and that's where I get the deceptively accurate fit of 10.4 m/s you report versus the 10.39 m/s my calculation yields.

However, I still have to improve my F4F-3 model so that it reaches the 330 mph pointed out by the report. It is a bit short of this currently because I based it on the F4F-4's drag, and while the F4F-4 is often criticized for the extra weight it put on, the report you found shows that it also put on a bit of extra drag along with the weight - the extra gun barrel opening is an obvious source of some of that drag, and the small gaps in the wing skinning necessary for the folding wings are another. If I reduce the F4F-3 model's drag to make it represent the cleaner variant, that will increase climb rate a tiny bit so that my calculation will no longer be as close to the historical data, but 0.2 to 0.3 m/s higher.

My original F4F-3 graph was calculated for MIL power, based on the R-1830-86 data from the BuAer standard aircraft charactersistics chart for the F4F-4. The F4F-3 uses the R-1830-76, but as far as I can tell from the data on AEHS Home, the two engines are identical with regard to the parameters that determine performance. MIL power is 1200 HP/2700 rpm @ sea level, 1150 HP/2700 rpm @ 11500 ft, and 1040 HP/2550 rpm @ 18400 ft. This does yield a contradiction to the F4F-3 report which shows a full throttle height of just 15500 ft for high gear, but that also seems to contradict the 21000 ft full throttle height in level flight. No idea how to resolve this one, and there is one like this in almost every flight report :-/

My original F4F-3 graph was also calculated for 7065 lbs instead of the 7300 lbs of the F4F-3 report, but as the F4F-3 report gives exactly these 7065 lbs as "full load weight", this was probably a good choice. The difference to the 7300 lbs in the report was responsible for some of the excess climb rate you were noticing, though. (I made it a habit to note the weight on the charts, but the F4F part of the chart was so old that I hadn't done that yet, and while assembling the various curves I did not go back into my calculation to look it up. Now you know anyway 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## varsity078740 (Apr 23, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The successful manned belly turret in later B-17E's and all F's and G's was Sperry. The early unsuccessful remote control one was made by Bendix.
> 
> Joe



Joe:

I respectfully disagree. The Bendix remote lower turret was used on early 
B-24Ds and B-25B thru early G models. They were retactable, and had a sighting system built into and viewed through the body of the turret It was not a successful design as such but was later improved and adapted as the chin turret for B-17s. Early B-17Es had a Sperry non retractable turret that
was an entirely different design and used a seperate periscopic sighting station viewed through a bubble, aft of the turret.

Duane


----------



## slaterat (Apr 24, 2009)

I voted for the Zero. Its weaknesses are well documented , but in early 42 it had enough performance to overcome them. Of the allied rides its close, all have similar advantages regarding the Zero, ie dive speed and toughness. However, I would chose the Hurricane over the Wildcat or the P 40. It was pretty essential for all three of them to need an altitude advantage to defeat the Zero and the Hurricane has the best climb rate of the three.

Slaterat


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 24, 2009)

I chose the Zero, because of its speed and maneuverability.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi again,

>However, I still have to improve my F4F-3 model so that it reaches the 330 mph pointed out by the report. It is a bit short of this currently because I based it on the F4F-4's drag, and while the F4F-4 is often criticized for the extra weight it put on, the report you found shows that it also put on a bit of extra drag along with the weight - the extra gun barrel opening is an obvious source of some of that drag, and the small gaps in the wing skinning necessary for the folding wings are another. 

Here is the comparison again with the improved F4F-3 data and the P-39D data finally added.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

....


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 26, 2009)

Merlin's P-40 there weren't in pacific in '42?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2009)

Thanks Hohun.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 26, 2009)

Gotta go with the Zero-sen in 1942....


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

I still go with the Wildcat! Got to have higher chance of survival with some armor and self sealing tanks.... Look at the Zero the wrong way and it'll burst into flames.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

P-40E for me, chart or no chart was the better fighter in the PTO in 42'.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> I still go with the Wildcat! Got to have higher chance of survival with some armor and self sealing tanks.... Look at the Zero the wrong way and it'll burst into flames.



Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs

I'm also not sure that the F4F-3 was the most representative variant for 1942 - it appears that the Guadalcanal campaign was mostly fought with poorer-performing F4F-4 aircraft, for example.

(Of course, they also met A6M2 aircraft that were not performing as well as the A6M3, but at least the higher-performing Zero variant seems to have made a combat appearance in that theatre.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>But how do they stand against other targets, eg. how successful would be a fighter against a B-25 type of target? 
>From that point of view, Zero would have much more trouble then Hurricane II or P-40E, since the .50cals would've make minced meat out of it. The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.

Hm, at least for a B-17 type of target, we can use the German reports as a guide line. German analysis showed that about 25 rounds of MG 151/20 ammunition had to hit a four-engined bomber to achieve a 95 % chance of desctruction of the bomber.

Due to the lower power of the A6M3's Type 99-1 cannon, that would be equivalent to about 51 hits. With 5 % to 9 % hits as used in the German reports, that would require about 560 to 1020 rounds to be expended by the A6M, which is considerably more than the available ammunition supply.

(With regard to the 12.7 mm machine guns - the equivalent total muzzle energy would be achieved by 153 rounds of API, requiring about 1700 to 3100 rounds to be fired under the above assumptions. That is not as far beyond the P-40E's actual capability as the above amount is beyond the A6M's.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs

No longer - I added the Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo 

It's a rough analysis though, based on the sketchy data of the R-1820-40 engine on AEHS Home, and on the assumption that the F2A-3 had the same drag condition as the Finnish Brewster.

However, it's probably good enough to see why the Marines at Midway were not happy with the type ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

....


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2009)

HoHun said:


> .... However, it's probably good enough to see why the Marines at Midway were not happy with the type ...



No one was happy with it.

I never listed it in my poll due to it being inferior in every catagory.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 26, 2009)

Many of fighter here are the same on my thread on best radial of '42, we need add only the only 3 with 12 cylinders engine (P-39, P-40 and Hurricane) and take out planes that fightning only in ETO/MTO/eastern front.
Need to remember the use of other fighter in CBI/Pacific like: CW-21B (nederland east indie) Mohawk IV (RAF) Hawk 75 A-7 (NEI) Brewster 339 (NEI, RAF maybe similat to usmc planes), Lancer (chinese), P-35A (USAAC in Philippines campaign) and japanese Type 96 (navy) and 97 (army)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Many of fighter here are the same on my thread on best radial of '42,



No, this is for aircraft in the PTO/CBI.

What made a good airplane in Europe didn't necessarily mean it was effective in the tropics against the highly maneuverable Japanese AC.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 27, 2009)

As you want.
But i don't see nothing of wrong in that i writed, my thread it's not eurocentric or allied-centric.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Something from another point of view, regarding Zero vs. B-17:

Since the fellow members provided a good info about Zero's success as a bomber killer (despite a pathetic weaponry), one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available). 

Henning,
When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Something from another point of view, regarding Zero vs. B-17:
> 
> Since the fellow members provided a good info about Zero's success as a bomber killer (despite a pathetic weaponry), one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available).
> 
> ...



I would be interested in a statistical comparison of the formation strength (at least in Squadron strength) B-17 missions what % loss rate was experienced to Zeros? As most were without fighter escort it should be OK to compare PTO period of Feb 1942 to Jan 1943 against the period Aug 42-July 43 for the 8th AF.

Many post Java (DEI campaign) B-17 strikes were armed recon, and attacks on shipping - in combination with strikes on airfields and harbor shipping at Rabaul and various targets in New Guinea.

I suspect the FW 190 was a much more effective interceptor in 1942-1943 than the A6M


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Since the 109s and 190s haven't wiped out the US _viermots_ during 1943, I guess this would be a 'struggle'.



drgondog said:


> > Originally Posted by JoeB
> > But in a number of earlier encounters in Philippines and Dutch East Indies small B-17(and LB-30/B-24) formations suffered badly at the hands of Zeroes. The bomber claims to have downed Zeroes were vastly exaggerated; Zeroes never suffered really heavy losses attacking B-17's in 1942. And the Zero claims against the bombers were sometimes actually understated, because few of the B-17's crashed right then and there, they *were* relatively tough, but many never made it back to base.
> >
> > True - but have to reflect that they were primarily D's - and the E's had much better defensive armament and self sealing tanks. There were only a few E's at Pearl Harbor and had just arrived on Dec 7.
> ...



Well, this one got me thinking (from page 2 of this thread).
Now I know that it was a fair number of posts regarding this issue, but I agree with you that we do need a more throughout statistical analysis.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available). 

Hm, to me it looks like the German success against unescorted bombers would have stopped the daylight bombing offensive against the Reich if the USAAF hadn't deployed long-range escorts to keep the German fighters off the bombers.

Without data on the force ratios, it's hard to compare different situations. And the smaller the numbers of aircraft involved in an encounter, the greater the random "noise" ...

>When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.

Well, you asked for effect on a B-25 type of target, and against bombers muzzle velocity is not of much concern.

The Hispano II can be considered to be superior to the MG FF/M, at least once the armour-piercing incendiary rounds become available to replace the ball rounds in 1942. However, by that time, the MG FF/M had mostly been been replaced by the MG 151/20 in German fighters, except for the outer wing guns of the Fw 190A. (Until 1942, the Spitfire V only had 60 rounds per gun just like the Me 109E I believe, and by the time the Fw 190A-5 became available, a 90 round drum for the MG FF/M had been introduced into service - unfortunately, I don't know the exact time at which it first became available. The Hispano rounds on the average were about 10 % more powerful than the MG FF/M rounds, though.)

The ShVAK, well - it wasn't particularly powerful, and about half-way between the MG FF/M and the Hispano II in terms of muzzle velocity. The rounds of the MG FF/M in were about twice as powerful as those of the ShVAK, so the 120 rounds for the MG FF/M are equivalent to about 236 rounds of ShVAK ammunition. So the Me 109E had a greater ammunition supply than what the roughly contemporary Jakovlev and Lavochkin fighters carried.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2009)

HoHun said:


> I'm also not sure that the F4F-3 was the most representative variant for 1942 - it appears that the Guadalcanal campaign was mostly fought with poorer-performing F4F-4 aircraft, for example.



Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....
But, IIRC the -4 had another two .50's right, but as they fitted them with extra guns they lowered the amount of ammo for each gun, didn't they, so those couldn't have affected the performance that much or did they?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled. 

As for the numbers statistics for A6M vs. B-17/B-24, I myself would love to see them  

The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire. 

When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no _Minengeschoss_ for the FF). So the 404 is better. 
ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter. I'd rate ShVAK as better cannon.

The MG-FF/M receives bonus points since it had the _Minengeschoss_ available, but the other stuff remains. I rate again the Allied weapons as slightly better.

The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2009)

Hi Lucky,

>Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....

Hehe, no need to ... you're wrong but the question was a good one. I bet the Navy pilots asked it, too!

As you can see indicated on my diagram, the F4F-3 weighed in at 3204 kg in fighter trim, a figure confirmed as typical by the evaluation report Claidemore posted above. The F4F-4 according to the BuAer Airplane Characteristics Performance sheets weighed in at 3617 kg, a gain of more than 400 kg without any gain of power and while drag increased quite a bit, too.

(At least, the increase in drag is evident if you compare the early-production F4F-3 tested for performance with the data given in the BuAer sheet for the F4F-4. However, BuAer also shows a markedly lower full throttle height for what should be a virtually identical engine, so both sources appear to be not perfectly consistent. I just see that Mike has a lot of new data on F4F Performance Trials which I haven't checked yet - maybe it will help to explain the difference.)

The hefty increase in weight was due to the re-design of the wings to include a folding mechanism, which was of great operational value since it allowed the carriers to take a lot more fighters aboard, and early war experience had shown that fighters were more important in naval warfare than anticipated. However, the weight increase probably exceeded everything that had been expected when Navy ordered the F4F-4, so I'm sure there were a lot of people who were just as surprised as you about F4F-4 performance.

Note that the evaluation report Claidemore provided shows that the US Navy had been guaranteed a top speed of 350 mph for the F4F-3 when they were just achieving 331 mph in practice. 19 mph is a big difference for early-war fighter aircraft ... and the F4F-4 was down to 320 mph.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled. 

Oh well, I'd have to see the USAAF raids on the map, but I think the real big and deep raids that were made in 1943 were all losing bombers in a magnitude that would have made continuous operations impossible. The USAAF only undertook these raids because they didn't expect these losses, and perhaps also because they thought they were shooting down far more German fighters than they actually were. I don't believe they would have continued like that into 1944 without the escort fighters ...

>The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire. 

The Germans found out that high firepower to minimize the time of exposure was far more important than muzzle velocity. Their evaluations gave the hit chance against a four-engined bomber at 500 m as 10 % for the high-velocity MK 103 and 8.3 % for the low-velocity MK 108. The higher firepower of the MK 108 easily made up for the lower hit chances, and another report which I have summarized in a Me 262 cannon thread on this forum showed that this superiority extended to even longer ranges than the 500 m mentioned in the Viermot report.

>When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no _Minengeschoss_ for the FF). 

Hm, now I see that you're referring to the French Hispano - you might be right, I don't have data on the French ammunition. However, you could still mount two MG FF in the wings while the French fighters could only be equipped with a single HS-404, which is a weakness too. As you're probably aware, mounting the Hispano in the wings was rather difficult and attempts to get it to work were completely futile during the Battle of Britain.

>ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter. 

Oh well, the ShVAK-armed fighters were really pitted against the MG FF/M-armed fighters when shots were fired in anger, so the comparison is not all that productive. Maybe I should try and find some good MG FF data to include it into my firepower comparison, too. It will of course score worse than the MG FF/M.

>The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.

True, wing-mounting is a clear disadvantage. However, that is not as much of a problem against bombers as it's against fighters, and your original question asked for bomber targets 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled.
> 
> *Plus four and 1/2 months in 1942, although those were 'raids' to occupied France and Holland mostly - and escorted by Spitfires.*
> 
> ...



I truly believe Zero vs B-17D and early E in PTO is a distinctly different air war than late model E/F/G in 1943 over Germany - and the Luftwaffe definitely punished the 8th AF (and 12th) for unescorted target attacks.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I truly believe Zero vs B-17D and early E in PTO is a distinctly different air war than late model E/F/G in 1943 over Germany - and the Luftwaffe definitely punished the 8th AF (and 12th) for unescorted target attacks.



Considering the lack of armor and self sealing tanks of the Zero, and its reliance on a pair of low performing cannons ..... the B17 had a far better chance of defending against and surviving atatcks by 1 or 2 Zero's.

From what I recall, it was often massed attacks by the Zero's and Oscars that did the B17's in.


----------



## renrich (Apr 27, 2009)

I think that the B17 was not the most commonly used bomber in the PTO after the initial months of the war but rather the B24 because of it's range and bombload. Seems like I recall most of the bombing raids out of Guadalcanal were B24s. B26s and B25s were heavily used in the Papua campaign(can't spell New G)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Considering the lack of armor and self sealing tanks of the Zero, and its reliance on a pair of low performing cannons ..... the B17 had a far better chance of defending against and surviving atatcks by 1 or 2 Zero's.
> 
> From what I recall, it was often massed attacks by the Zero's and Oscars that did the B17's in.



Agreed on both points - ditto in the ETO although I suspect more fW 190s scored single on straggler than same situation with Zero against the E.

If we believe the Zeamer, Sarnoski MoH recon mission it was 15+ Zero/Dinah's attacking their B-17E repeatedly - and they brought most of it home.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> I think that the B17 was not the most commonly used bomber in the PTO after the initial months of the war but rather the B24 because of it's range and bombload. Seems like I recall most of the bombing raids out of Guadalcanal were B24s. B26s and B25s were heavily used in the Papua campaign(can't spell New G)



B17's were used throughout the PTO till middle 1943. The 5th, 11th and 43rd BG's used B17's untill B24's were made available.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 28, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Lucky,
> 
> >Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....
> 
> ...



Hi Henning,
 Forgot about the wingfold mechanism, my bad!   So, the F-4 had to tangle with the extra weight of two more .50's AND heavier wings and not getting a more powerful engine?  On the other hand, a more powerful engine would have likely given it shorter legs. Do you know if the F-4 had shorter range than the F-3, due to replacing some fuel tanks for the extra guns and wingfold mechanism?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Lucky,

>Do you know if the F-4 had shorter range than the F-3, due to replacing some fuel tanks for the extra guns and wingfold mechanism?

It seems that both models of the F4F had the fuel tanks in the lower fuselage so that the wing design did not affect the amount of fuel carried. However, looking at the detail specifications for the two aircraft, it appears that the F4F-3 held 147 gallons of fuel internally while the amount was slightly reduced to 144 gallons in the F4F-4.

Generally, more drag and more weight are bad for range, so everything else considered equal, the F4F-4 must have had a shorter range than the F4F-3.

However, the look at the detail specification showed that the fighter weight for the F4F-3 was considered to be for just 110 gallons of fuel, while the BuAer sheet for the F4F-4 show this variant fully fueled to 144 gallons, so the direct comparison appears slightly biased in favour of the F4F-3.

The engine ratings listed in the F4F-3 detail specification file are not quite the same as the engine ratings in the F4F-4 BuAer sheet, and the F4F-4 detail specification points to an external rating definition that is not included on Mike's site. However, US engine ratings really are a mess, and it does not surprise me to see differing ratings for a basically identical engine in two sources.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 28, 2009)

Cheers Henning!

What was it that gave the F-4 more drag then?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Lucky,

>What was it that gave the F-4 more drag then?

I'm not entirely sure (and the new reports Mike put up on his site don't all perfectly agree with the BuAer chart, so this looks like a complex picture).

Some stuff I already listed above: "the extra gun barrel opening is an obvious source of some of that drag, and the small gaps in the wing skinning necessary for the folding wings are another".

However, the difference might be too large to be covered by these two items alone ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2009)

Its kind of hard to see the chart .... but it looks like the F4F (any model) is quite slower than the P40 and Zero.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 28, 2009)

Thanks Henning! How would it affect the Zero, if you added the same amount of protection as you could find on the Wildcat, would they more evenly matched?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

>Its kind of hard to see the chart .... but it looks like the F4F (any model) is quite slower than the P40 and Zero.

Compared to the A6M3, the F4F-3 is in fact inferior in every aspect of performance!

Compared to the P-40E however, the F4F-3 is superior in climb and turn at all altitudes, and from about 7 km up it's also faster. A pilot trying to intercept a Japanese formation at 25000 ft would find the F4F-3 to be markedly superior to the P-40 in every respect.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2009)

Didn't the Japanese bomb from much lower altitudes? 

Most of the fighting in the PTO was at middle and lower altitudes. So while the Wildcat gets the credit for being effective up there, the P40 gets credit in the lower altitudes.

As for fighter bombers .... the P40 is definitely better than either the Zero or Wildcat.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 29, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

>Didn't the Japanese bomb from much lower altitudes? 

Maybe - but it seems at Singapore and at Guadalcanal, their bombers often came in very high, and I've also heard from P-400 pilot MF Kirby that his unit was sent to intercept Japanese bombers which simply flew too high for their altitude-limited fighters to intercept.

It might be different if we're talking about carrier strike forces - which would be sort of ironic 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2009)

Ive been under the impression that most "high altitude" bombing in the PTO was around the 20,000 ft. level.

Anyone else have other impressions?


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Since the Zero is dominating the "best" catagory, perhaps we should look at whos #2 and #3.

My vote is the P40 for #2 and the Wildcat for #3.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 4, 2009)

my vote for 2nd maybe Hurricane, for 3rd too hard many planes have different strenghtness and weakness


----------



## HoHun (May 4, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>my vote for 2nd maybe Hurricane, for 3rd too hard many planes have different strenghtness and weakness

My vote for second place (if I accept the A6M3 as first place) is the Ki-44.

It's the best below 5.5 km, and if I discount the A6M3, it's even the best below 8 km.

Above 8 km, only the Hurricane II and the F4F-3 are better, but due to its light weight the Ki-44 still has fairly good performance even up there.

If I take into account that combat will happen at all altitudes from the deck to 10 km, the Ki-44 enjoys the greatest superiority in 80 % of the altitude range, is outperformed only slightly by just two types in another 10 %, and clearly inferior to only these two in merely the top 10 %.

The Hurricane II might be ranked third if one consider the faster P-39 and P-40 too limited in their climb rate, unless one considers the low and medium altitude speed to be more important.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (May 4, 2009)

True Type 2 was good, but i'm, relatively, a fan of dogfighter and it's have a so slow turn rate.
Type 2 is fastest under 5.5 km but in climbing it's best only within 3-4.2 km


----------



## HoHun (May 4, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>True Type 2 was good, but i'm, relatively, a fan of dogfighter and it's have a so slow turn rate.

Well, sustained turn rate just doesn't have much combat value.

>Type 2 is fastest under 5.5 km but in climbing it's best only within 3-4.2 km

If you leave aside the A6M3, which Syscom not only acknowledged to be superior anyway but which also is a friendly type the Ki-44 wouldn't realistically have to fight, the Ki-44 is the best climber up to 4.8 km, and second best up to 6 km, where it also enjoys a large speed advantage that might be used for an initial zoom climb to even the odds.

In any case, the degree of superiority it enjoys in most of the altitude band really makes up for the much less pronounced inferiority it has above 8 km.

(As long as it holds the speed advantage, a slight climb rate disadvantage is nothing serious.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (May 4, 2009)

i'm neither pilot or aeronautic engineer so idk the value of sustained turn of rate, i thinked some, but was in wrong
true, aside type 0 model 32


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

Unless I am mistaken, the 1942 versions of the Ki-44 were underarmed at 2 x 7.7mm and 2 x 12.7mm.

It might fly great, but it didnt have much of a bite.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 4, 2009)

Looks like the Zero is the most popular by a land side.


----------



## HoHun (May 5, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

>Unless I am mistaken, the 1942 versions of the Ki-44 were underarmed at 2 x 7.7mm and 2 x 12.7mm.

Hm, true. Here is a firepower comparison (based on the 7.7 mm Browning data for all rifle-calibre guns, and the Ho-103 as Japanese 12.7 mm machine gun):


```
P-39D          1,77 MW
P-40E          1,70 MW
A6M3           1,20 MW
F4F-3          1,14 MW
F2A-3          1,14 MW
Hurricane IIB  0,90 MW
Ki-44-I        0,51 MW
Ki-43-I        0,26 MW
```

(Ki-43-I calculated with 1 x 7.7 mm, 1 x 12.7 mm guns.)

However, considering that the performance advantage the Ki-44-I enjoys over all Allied fighters is either a massive speed advantage over most of the altitude range, or a massive climb rate advantage over the entire altitude range along with a modest speed advantage, the firepower disadvantage is not all that serious. With that kind of superiority, you will often be able to fly repeat attacks if the first attack did not result in a kill for lack of firepower.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (May 5, 2009)

Hi again,

It just occurred to me to include the P-400 (based on a 1:1 HEI/SAPI belting)


```
P-400          1,93 MW
P-39D          1,77 MW
P-40E          1,70 MW
A6M3           1,20 MW
F4F-3          1,14 MW
F2A-3          1,14 MW
Hurricane IIB  0,90 MW
Ki-44-I        0,51 MW
Ki-43-I        0,26 MW
```

The P-400 clearly has the best armament in this commparison - well, the type was designed around its armament, so that was to be expected. The only surprise is that the Hispano-armed version has greater firepower than the one with a 37 mm cannon.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (May 5, 2009)

That 7.7mm MG wont have much effect against the heavier constructed allied types.

That leaves a single 12.7mm MG.

I would bet the Ki-44 would run out of ammo before it would do a lot of damage.


----------



## HoHun (May 5, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

>That 7.7mm MG wont have much effect against the heavier constructed allied types.

Lots of heavily-constructed Luftwaffe aircraft were shot down by 7.7 mm MGs during the Battle of Britain. Poor firepower does not mean a weapon is ineffective, it just means that you must make greater efforts to achieve the same result as with a higher firepower weapon.

>That leaves a single 12.7mm MG.

Above, you suggested that the Ki-44 was equipped with two 12.7 mm machine guns.

>I would bet the Ki-44 would run out of ammo before it would do a lot of damage.

I would bet it was well able to shoot down all types of Allied aircraft as its firepower was in comparable to that of the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, but with more powerful 12.7 mm guns in the mix.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (May 5, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Syscom,
> 
> >That 7.7mm MG wont have much effect against the heavier constructed allied types.
> 
> ...



8 or 6 .303's will trump 2 x 7.7's.

But still, 2 x 12.7's means your aim has to be perfect to do any damage.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 5, 2009)

Hi,
Did any of CBI Hurricanes featured an all-cannon weapon set-up (the -IIC version)?


----------



## HoHun (May 5, 2009)

Hi Syscom,

>8 or 6 .303's will trump 2 x 7.7's.

Just a few posts above when you still knew how to count, you came up with 2 x 7.7 mm and 2 x 12.7 mm machine guns for the Ki-44-I.

That's the set of guns to compare to whatever else might trump it or not.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (May 5, 2009)

Hi Tomo,

>Did any of CBI Hurricanes featured an all-cannon weapon set-up (the -IIC version)?

I'm not sure. I read at least in one book that the armament on 12-gun fighters was reduced at squadron level to 8 guns to save weight. Wish I'd remember the title - Hurricane over Sumatra perhaps, Hurricane over the Jungle, or maybe Hurricane over Burma.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Hunter368 (May 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> That 7.7mm MG wont have much effect against the heavier constructed allied types.
> 
> That leaves a single 12.7mm MG.
> 
> I would bet the Ki-44 would run out of ammo before it would do a lot of damage.



The Jap 7.7mm was preferred by some Jap aces over their cannons. They shot down lots of US and UK planes during WW2.

But I do agree with you on this point Syscom, what works for the few does not mean its works the best for the masses. Wars are won by the masses.

My preference would of been for 0.5 cal - 20mm guns on any fighter I flew. 

4 - 20mmm

or (either kicks butt or a combo of both)

6-8 0.5 cal


----------



## Timppa (May 6, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi,
> Did any of CBI Hurricanes featured an all-cannon weapon set-up (the -IIC version)?



Looking at OOB's from Shores' book it seems that for example:
Jan 1943: 12 Hurricane IIb and 6 IIc squadrons.
Jul 1944: 11 squadrons, all IIc
Jun 1945: Still one IIc squadron (42nd).


----------



## tomo pauk (May 6, 2009)

Thanks.

Since there were 6 squadrons of the all-cannon variant in CBI theatre in Jan 1943, it's safe guess that we should count in some of them in later part of 1942.
So the Hurricane IIc has had the greatest fire power, by a land mile.


----------



## syscom3 (May 6, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Since there were 6 squadrons of the all-cannon variant in CBI theatre in Jan 1943, it's safe guess that we should count in some of them in later part of 1942.
> So the Hurricane IIc has had the greatest fire power, by a land mile.



Lets not jump to conclusions ..... Lets see how many were flying in Nov and Dec 1942.

While tchnically they would take top honors, if there werent too many flying, then I wouldnt include it in this tpoll/thread. Just like what I said about the P38.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2009)

We should indeed find out how many Hurricane IICs were available; that's why asked the question.

I propose that we should have two entries for the Zero in performance charts. One with the Sakae featuring the two-stage compressor (Sakae-21?, so 580 km/h) and one with single stage compressor (capable for 530km/h).


----------



## Vincenzo (May 7, 2009)

afaik Type 0 model 21 max speed ~550 km/h at max power


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> We should indeed find out how many Hurricane IICs were available; that's why asked the question.
> 
> I propose that we should have two entries for the Zero in performance charts. One with the Sakae featuring the two-stage compressor (Sakae-21?, so 580 km/h) and one with single stage compressor (capable for 530km/h).



This poll is inclusive for any model, that was available in quantity and in theater for 1941/1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> This poll is inclusive for any model, that was available in quantity and in theater for 1941/1942.



No problem with that.


----------

