# The one most over-rated plane of WWII



## NTGray (Nov 8, 2021)

There is an eternal thread here, recently resurrected again, asking for opinions on the most over-rated aircraft of WWII. I have lately been thinking about that very question, and about a particular airplane, and that plane would be the A6M, or Japanese Zero. It was definitely the most over-rated plane of World War II, based on the disparity between its very high reputation and its fairly low actual merit. At the same time, I will suggest that the F4F (Grumman Wildcat) was possibly the most under-rated plane, precisely because it always gets compared to the Zero, and always (supposedly) comes up way short.

Let's quickly review the part that "everybody knows": when the Zero first appeared in combat against American navy aircraft, everybody was amazed at how agile it was. Fantastically maneuverable, it simply overwhelmed the poor clumsy Wildcats. In a dogfight, it was no contest. The Wildcat was simply no match for the Zero. Or so "they" said.

And of course we all know why: to quote from the National Air and Space Museum website, "Jiro Horikoshi assembled a team in 1937 to design a new fighter for the Imperial Japanese Navy with two primary goals in mind: to make the aircraft as maneuverable as possible and to provide it with enough range to escort Japanese bombers all the way to distant targets in China and back."

Well, he got the required range by filling it with enough gas tank volume to hold 137 gallons internally and another 87 gallons in a drop tank, which enabled the 940 hp Nakajima 14-cylinder radial engine to haul the plane for over 1100 miles under normal conditions, giving it an effective combat radius (there, fight for a while, and back) of well over 300 miles, which was much greater than the combat range of American carrier planes.

But the agility came in large part from a conscious decision to cut every possible pound of weight out of the airplane. For starters, that meant a frame as light as Horikoshi could make it (not wood, as some think, but a very lightweight aluminum alloy, and as little of it as possible). Then there was the big decision: no armor. Not for the pilot, and not for the engine. And the gas tanks were not self-sealing. The resultant light-weight warrior could dance better than probably any other plane in the world at the time, and that was exactly what Horikoshi had been tasked to make it do.

That maneuverability was of course what everybody noticed. And the Zero quickly acquired the *myth* of invincibility. Because it was just that—a myth. The Zero's early success was based more on surprise than anything else. The Wildcat pilots were simply unprepared for what the Zero could do. Yet even on the morning of the greatest surprise of all, two American pilots flying P-40s (another often under-rated plane) shot down six Japanese planes between them, mostly Val dive bombers but also including one Zero. A P-40 could shoot down a Zero in a fair fight. (What the P-40s piloted by the Flying Tigers did to Zeros deserves its own separate discussion.)

Now here is where it gets revealing: in the early days of 1942, when the Zero was thought to be virtually unbeatable, the actual kill ratio between Zeros and Wildcats was about 1.5 to one. Certainly that equals an advantage for the Zero, but not a very large one. Wildcats were quite capable of shooting down Zeros. But as the war progressed, American tactics were adjusted to take advantage of the Wildcat's strengths and the Zero's weaknesses, and by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign the Wildcats were enjoying a kill ratio of almost six to one. And by the end of the war, with the declining quality of Japanese pilots who were up against better-trained, experienced American pilots, the ratio had reached nearly seven to one.

Of course, a big chunk of the Wildcats' advantage was training and teamwork. There was a saying that went, "A single Wildcat is no match for a Zero, but two Wildcats can take on four Zeros." And that kinda brings me back around to my opening point, and my conclusion: the high reputation of the Zero was based on just one outstanding quality—its maneuverability—plus the "surprise factor" when American pilots discovered it. Once things settled down and we had a chance to adjust, it turned out that the inherent advantages of the Wildcat (a much stronger engine, a powerful punch with its .50-caliber guns, and its heavy construction and generous armor, which made it able to absorb repeated hits from the Zero's guns and still keep fighting) along with the greatest weakness of the Zero (its light construction made it easy to knock down with one good burst) made the Wildcat not merely the Zero's *equal*, but for all practical purposes its *superior*. And instead of focusing on just one isolated characteristic of the Zero, the focus should have been on the entire machine. A good machine is the one that gets the job done, and the bottom line for the "superior" Zero and "inferior" Wildcat is that the Wildcat got the job done better than the Zero did.

In the end, the Zero was a noble but failed experiment. It never did deserve a reputation as a "superplane."


And if you want more details, here is something I came across while I was writing this:






Speaker Briefing: F4F Wildcat v A6M Zero-Sen Setting the Record Straight







gpsana.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 8, 2021)

NTGray said:


> (What the P-40s piloted by the Flying Tigers did to Zeros deserves its own separate discussion.)


Not really. The AVG never encountered Zeroes.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 8, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Not really. The AVG never encountered Zeroes.


There seems to be some disagreement among the various sources. Claire Chennault had some definite and specific ideas about how to fight Zeros, and Gregory (later "Pappy") Boyington is reported to have personally tangled with some when he was with the AVG. But I guess I'll dig into that history a little more deeply.



The Flying Tigers


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2021)

NTGray said:


> In the end, the Zero was a noble but failed experiment. It never did deserve a reputation as a "superplane."



I don't agree. The A6M was an extremely capable aircraft and carried out its tasks very well, despite continuing improved opposition. Contrary to your statement it was a complete success as a fighter, otherwise, no accusations of "superplane" would have been levelled in its direction. Just because it was later defeated by superior types and tactics does not take away from its qualities. Even at the very end of the war, Allied pilots in superior types were being warned not to dogfight a Zero.

For a late 30s/early 40s design, it was excellent and innovative, with cannon armament when its foreign carrier based contemporaries were not so fitted, it had innovations such as washout at the outer wings, it could be dismantled for ease of transport by splitting it in half aft of the canopy without having to remove the wings, and it had excellent performance and unrivalled range for its day. In 1941/1942, the Mitsubishi A6M was one of, if not the best aircraft carrier fighter in service in the world.

You are right about one thing, it did not warrant its reputation as a "superplane", but remember that Allied/US military personnel deemed it to be so. It was only natural that given time when tactics and superior types entered the scene that its sheen would wear off in the eyes of its opposition, but again, ignoring its qualities for the sake of diminished reputation was dangerous and Allied pilots had to learn to take the Zero very seriously. Please remember that its perceived reputation does not equate to its actual abilities.

That it remained in IJN service for as long as it did without viable replacement in service was not its fault - it was, after all a pre-war design and should have had a successor in service. The A7M suffered constant delay and the IJN devoted much of its resources building land based interceptors instead of replacing the Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 8, 2021)

In 1942, everything with a meatball on it was a Zero. Chennault was an eyewitness to Zeroes operating over China in 1940 and '41, but when the Great Pacific War began, the Navy pulled out of China, leaving it to the Army. Ditto Burma. That was an Army show.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 8, 2021)

NTGray
, For a better understanding of the activities of the Japanese and Allied air forces in the early months of the war, I highly recommend Christopher Shores _Bloody Shambles_ series. Dan Ford does a pretty good job recounting the operations of the AVG in _Flying Tigers_. Chad Molesworth picks up where Ford leaves off, covering the 23rd FG in _Sharks over China._ Luka Ruffato covers the Zero equipped Tainan Kokutai in New Guinea in _Eagles of the Southern Sky. _And John Lundstrom covers the USN vs IJN clashes from Pearl Harbor to the end of 1942 in his _First Team _series. Michael Clairingbould has several excellent books covering the South Pacific war. These are all much better sources than the webpage you cited. I'm sure others here can chime in on other excellent sources on the subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2021)

NTGray said:


> There seems to be some disagreement among the various sources. Claire Chennault had some definite and specific ideas about how to fight Zeros, and Gregory (later "Pappy") Boyington is reported to have personally tangled with some when he was with the AVG. But I guess I'll dig into that history a little more deeply.
> 
> 
> 
> The Flying Tigers


Sorry but this is 100% wrong. For years many (to include actual Flying Tiger members) thought they were fighting against Zeros when in actuality they were fighting against Oscars (KI-43) There were no IJN fighter units in that part of Asia when the Flying Tigers became operational, in fact much of the air operations in Burma came out of Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand and were flown by JAAF units. THE JAAF DID NOT FLY ZEROS. This has been well documented against Japanese operational records. There will not be any IJN units in that theater until mid 1942 if I recall.








Japanese Army Air Force deployments, December 1941 - March 1942

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 8, 2021)

The Zero was dangerous, but defeatable. So was the Wildcat. There's a pilot in the equation somewhere. In good hands, both planes were a positive menace in combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 9, 2021)

Someone posted that "most overrated plane" is really a flawed concept. The planes that have all that good press got it for good reason. A more interesting topic might be "what is the most underrated plane." Bristol Beaufighter? PBY? Ju-52?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 9, 2021)

P-39

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Nov 9, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> P-39


under or over rated ?


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2021)

rochie said:


> under or over rated ?


Yes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 9, 2021)

STOP. ALL OF YOU JUST STOP!!!! 

Think of the consequences of your actions here. If you're not careful, we'll have yet ANOTHER groundhog thread.

Heed my words. Repent ye! Repent ye!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 9, 2021)

Thanks God that we don't have someone to comment "Zero is a number, it can't fly"* here.

*Part of my personal experience with professors of History and Military in my country!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 9, 2021)

That whole Flying Tigers remark was a side comment, and when/if I make a separate discussion from it, it will be in the context of the P-40 being an "obsolete" plane by the time the war started. It wasn't. But let that drop for now. My focus is on the Zero, and the Wildcat. And I'm just enjoying talking with other people who know something about the planes that flew in the War, but don't have Ph.D.s (real or virtual) in the field or years of personal experience flying or working on WWII planes. (My father-in-law was a mechanic for the Flying Tigers, but he never shared any war stories except for the reason why he could not tolerate seeing eggs and rice on the same plate together.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2021)

NTGray said:


> That whole Flying Tigers remark was a side comment, and when/if I make a separate discussion from it, it will be in the context of the P-40 being an "obsolete" plane by the time the war started. It wasn't. But let that drop for now. My focus is on the Zero, and the Wildcat. And I'm just enjoying talking with other people who know something about the planes that flew in the War, but don't have Ph.D.s (real or virtual) in the field or years of personal experience flying or working on WWII planes. (My father-in-law was a mechanic for the Flying Tigers, but he never shared any war stories except for the reason why he could not tolerate seeing eggs and rice on the same plate together.)


So removing the Zero/ Flying Tiger myth from discussion, I agree that the P-40 was not obsolete at the start of WW2 and also agree with many of your points about the Zero. Once tactics set in, the Zero could be easily dealt with but it was still an aircraft not to be taken lightly. Also consider maintenance and interchangeability issues as well as a diminishing skilled pilot pool. As mentioned by another poster, little was done to improve the basic design and I also think there was a lot of propaganda hype in the US

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2021)

Oh no our boys are being shot down by buck toothed squinty eyed racially inferior Japs the only explanation must be the fighter aircraft is invincible.

That's what we're going to tell the taxpayers.

Edit: apologies to any Japanese person I am using outdated words to get a point across

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 9, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Then there was the big decision: no armor. Not for the pilot, and not for the engine. And the gas tanks were not self-sealing.


You make this sound like a revolutionary deviation from contemporary design standards, but while there were a few aircraft with (rather limited) protection in service when the A6M was designed, the default was still no armour. Where the zero stands out (also compared to most other Japanese fighters) was how long it took before protection was incorporated in the aircraft, but that does not detract from the original design.

As is (also) stated in the eternal thread you mention, it is difficult to point out what is the most overrated aircraft, it depends on who, when and where the rating is done, and while the zero certainly at times were rated higher than it objectively merits, I doubt it is the worst example ever. On the other hand, I don't believe in super planes. Anyhow, I believe those of your points that are refuted here was also refuted in the eternal thread, as well as in others. While one cannot read everything already written, it sometimes pays to make an effort to sound the waters before one barges in resurrecting old myths laid to rest several times over.

That said, enjoy the forum and its eternal threads. There's a lot in there that digs much deeper than semi-scholarly books written many decades ago, and the most exiting bit is that we don't agree on everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2021)

Both under- and over-rating are, in my opinion, results of "filtering" data in different ways, some ideologically driven. _I_ tend to think many German aircraft are overrated, partly because many people seem to (mistakenly) believe that German aeronautical technology was significantly superior to anyone else's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 9, 2021)

Not sure about equipment, but Tactic was superior, at least in 1939-41.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 9, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> You make this [lack of armor] sound like a revolutionary deviation from contemporary design standards, but while there were a few aircraft with (rather limited) protection in service when the A6M was designed, the default was still no armour.


True. The Spitfire and many other top-line 1940 planes also lacked armor for the pilot (at first, anyway). That included the first P-40s. The Wildcats in service in 1941 apparently already had armor, though. Plus, the more powerful American engines (made possible by higher-octane gasoline than the Japanese had) was also a major factor; the stronger engines could lug around the heavier airframes with greater ease, and the top speeds of the Zero and Wildcat were just about the same. The Zero had better climb performance, but the Wildcat could dive faster.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 10, 2021)

The Zero was one of the best fighter of him generation and was with a less powerful engine.
I've just the impression that there is a want to born an other myth that the Zero was a bad fighter.


NTGray said:


> Speaker Briefing: F4F Wildcat v A6M Zero-Sen Setting the Record Straight
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and this article is not good, there are some wrongs, i rate it lower of generic thread on this forum

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 10, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> The Zero was one of the best fighter of him generation and was with a less powerful engine.
> I've just the impression that there is a want to born an other myth that the Zero was a bad fighter.


I'm not claiming that the Zero was a *bad* airplane, but I am saying it was not a *great* airplane. It had one outstanding strength, its maneuverability, and that one thing shocked and impressed the Americans who flew against it. But in the long run the relative ineffectiveness of its weak .30 caliber machine guns and slow-firing, low-capacity 20mm cannon against the rugged Wildcats offset its nimbleness. That, plus the Zero's fragility and its lack of a radio (meaning that the flight commander could only communicate with the other planes by hand signals and wing waggling, whereas the Wildcat commander could talk to his group). The end result was that once battle tactics were adjusted, groups of Zeros were outmatched by groups of Wildcats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 10, 2021)

It's been linked to before in other places, and i'm not repeating it because I believe everything in it to be beyond dispute, but it is very well informed:



For those who hasn't seen it before.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 10, 2021)

Like so many other airplanes, the Zero was the best until it wasn’t. IMHO the Zero was the absolute best WW 1 airplane ever built. 
Nothing to do with manufacture, rather in concept. 
I know less about WW 1 aircraft than I do about WW 2 aircraft.

I forgot about the Ki-43. Same story.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 10, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> It's been linked to before in other places, and i'm not repeating it because I believe everything in it to be beyond dispute, but it is very well informed:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who hasn't seen it before.




For what it's worth I second the recommendation. This is an excellent video overview of the issues involved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 10, 2021)

NTGray said:


> True. The Spitfire and many other top-line 1940 planes also lacked armor for the pilot (at first, anyway). That included the first P-40s. The Wildcats in service in 1941 apparently already had armor, though. Plus, the more powerful American engines (made possible by higher-octane gasoline than the Japanese had) was also a major factor; the stronger engines could lug around the heavier airframes with greater ease, and the top speeds of the Zero and Wildcat were just about the same. The Zero had better climb performance, but the Wildcat could dive faster.


Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tonycat77 (Nov 10, 2021)

I think the zero would be completely unmatched if it had:
1.4x.50s instead of the og armament, .303s are useless and the 20mm had only 60 rounds early on and were very slow.
2.working radio sets
3.Went for the mitusbishi kinsei instead of sakae, no early on improvements, but it had much higher growth potential, enough to get the plane to get armor and self sealing fuel tanks, A6M8 had 1500+ HP by 1945, too late, but the engine was available in quantity and capable of at least 1300hp since late 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.


Hi
The book 'Knights of the Skies - Armour protection for British fighting aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox, covers the story of armour plate quite well. The 1938 ideas for frontal armour for fighters is included below:





The idea and fitment of rear armour plate for Hurricanes (and later Spitfires) pre-dates the fall of France:









Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 10, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> The book 'Knights of the Skies - Armour protection for British fighting aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox, covers the story of armour plate quite well. The 1938 ideas for frontal armour for fighters is included below:
> View attachment 647841
> 
> ...


I dont know what it says about what actually happened but those quotes are the best laid plans of mice and men. Hurricanes were sent to France without armour but the whole discussion is odd, fitting the CS prop and using 100 octane fuel transformed the Hurricane and Spitfire anyway.


----------



## Tkdog (Nov 11, 2021)

Zero did not just have maneuverability, it also had range, ability to be operated from a carrier, ability to be mass produced, and many other positive attributes. 

But, I think the reality of the early war may be that they had much better trained pilots. Pilots that either had personal modern combat experience or had at least been trained by those who had it. The airplane was competitive for the time and theater, but the pilots had an edge. When that edge shifted to to the US things evened out. Soon they could neither continue to maintain their training edge nor continue to mass produce aircraft that could continue to be competitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm continuously surpised to find out there was no such thing as a perfect aircraft. Doh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 11, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm continuously surpised to find out there was no such thing as a perfect aircraft. Doh.


All aircraft are perfect on the drawing board..............until they fly


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2021)

The Gloster Gamecock was as close to perfection as is humanly possible.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 11, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.


The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2021)

NTGray said:


> The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.


It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.


PAT303,

I think it may be more of a different look at things. Your comments regarding crossing the English Channel causes a focus to be solely on the BOB scenario. However, the Zero was designed to specifications and met them. Neither the Me-109, P-40, or the Spit would have been able to do what the IJN wanted or needed. It fit the SWP battle ground. Dare I mention the P-39. Unloved by the US and Brits, but loved by the Russians. Worked well in the environment / method it was used, as did the Zero.

From my perspective the Zero was great until it’s weakness’s we’re uncovered (lack of armor, lack of radios = employment limitation, and lack of a substantial constant improvement process that was effectively used elsewhere in the world). It was, via tactics maturation, effectively turned into a much lower threat. However, lose your head and try to knife fight it (close in turning fight) and you could find yourself in a world of hurt.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.


My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2021)

NTGray said:


> My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.


Read post No 29 on this thread from MikeMeech. The fitting of rear armour was tied in with the fitting of C/S props and use of 100 Octane fuel. This was done during the Battle of France and in some cases actually in France with Hurricanes. Spitfires first saw action over France during Dunkerque but they were operating from south England.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 11, 2021)

NTGray said:


> My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.


Hi
More information from Fox's book:





From this it appears that all the original Hurricane squadrons in France had been fitted with rear armour plate before 10th May 1940, indeed all new production Hurricanes had been fitted with same from 22 February 1940. Most discussion is on retrospective fits on aircraft in service the same applies to mods like Constant Speed propellers which were introduced on 'new' production (Hurricane production from October 1939) and then there was catching up mods to do on squadrons and MUs on aircraft already delivered. 
There is some discussion on Spitfire rear armour as there had to be some redesign in the cockpit (one item was the pilot's head rest) to fit it which would slow up production of the aircraft. However, decisions had been made about rear armour for both Hurricane and Spitfire prior to the experience of the Battle of France.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2021)

With regards to AVG fighting the A6M, the KI-43 entered IJA service late in 1941, about the time the A6M's numbers were ramping up in IJN service.

The two not only looked similar (both found at the top left of the ID chart attached), but had a comparable performance profile, so mis-identification of the types occurred often during the early days of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Nov 11, 2021)

I tend to get passionate about underrated aircraft, rather than the overrated ones. However, I do feel that certain attributes of aircraft are overrated, such as firepower or speed. For instance, the P-51 Mustang is generally considered to be the fastest fighter of (most of) WW2, but it is rarely mentioned that at medium altitude several aircraft were faster. Or the manoeuvrability of the Ki-100 meant very little when you cannot seize the initiative due to low speed.

That said, I do notice that the Lancaster is - at least in British public opinion - generally overrated. Or the Swordfish. Or the Wellington. Or ... Well, all British aircraft really

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.


Hi
According to Morgan and Shacklady, page 72, Modification 140 'Fit rear armour' was incorporated into the original Spitfire design from 19 October 1939.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2021)

NTGray said:


> My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.


Ive just realised. The Battle of France was officially starting on 10 May. But the RAF were in France and in combat before that, the rush to fit props armour supply 100 Octane fuel and indeed make all Hurricanes have metal skinned wings was before the actual battle of France, but if you are shooting down aircraft and being shot down, you are certainly in a battle in France.








RAF Advanced Air Striking Force - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




*February–March[edit]*More flying was possible in January but the air forces spent most of February on the ground, with many of the aircrews on leave. The weather became much better for flying and on 2 March a Dornier was shot down by two 1 Squadron Hurricanes, one of the British pilots being killed while attempting a forced landing after being hit in the engine by return fire; next day, British fighters shot down a He 111. On 3 March, two 73 Squadron pilots escorting a Potez 63 at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) spotted seven He 111s 5,000 ft (1,500 m) higher and gave chase, only to be attacked by six Bf 109s. A Bf 109 overshot one of the Hurricanes, which hit it and fell, leaving a trail of black smoke, the eleventh victory for the squadron. The Hurricane was hit by the third Bf 109 and the pilot only just managed to reach a French airfield and make an emergency landing. On the morning of 4 March, a 1 Squadron Hurricane shot down a Bf 109 over Germany and later, three other Hurricanes of the squadron attacked nine Messerschmitt Bf 110s north of Metz and shot one down. On 29 March, three Hurricanes of 1 Squadron were attacked by Bf 109 and Bf 110s over Bouzonville, a Bf 109 being shot down at Apach and a Bf 110 north-west of Bitche; a Hurricane pilot was killed trying to land at Brienne-le-Château.[34]​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 11, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Ive just realised. The Battle of France was officially starting on 10 May. But the RAF were in France and in combat before that. . .


True, but the period from September 1939 to May 1940 saw so little action (outside of Poland, anyway) that it is often referred to as:



> THE PHONEY WAR (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg) was an eight-month period at the start of World War II, during which there was only one limited military land operation on the Western Front, when French troops invaded Germany's Saar district. Nazi Germany carried out the Invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939; the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. [Wikipedia]


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2021)

NTGray said:


> True, but the period from September 1939 to May 1940 (not counting what was happening within Poland) saw so little action that it is often referred to as:


Little action is not no action, there were only 6 Hurricane squadrons in France as per the link one squadron made its 11th claim on 3 March. Overall maybe a phoney war but not as far as Hurricane squadrons were concerned.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 12, 2021)

NTGray said:


> The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.


No armour was fitted before the BoB.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 12, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> However, the Zero was designed to specifications and met them. Neither the Me-109, P-40, or the Spit would have been able to do what the IJN wanted or needed. It fit the SWP battle ground.


Biff, I don't agree, the RAF could have made a Spitfire do everything the A6M did they just weren't prepared to suffer the loss of the most important asset which is their pilots doing it. A PR Spit is equal to a A6M, unprotected tanks, nil armor or protection in any form, no coms, no safety gear, the A6M even had 2'' dia holes cut into the pilots seat to save weight, they then could have put aux tanks behind the pilot and slung a DT under it's belly and there you are a SpittyZero, the trouble is what happens when a plane like that flies over Europe or into Europe which is controlled airspace on both sides, it'll get butchered.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.


Were any fighters in the West designed as dogfighters? 

Or even pure interceptors? The P-38 and MiG-3 come to mind but other than that, all Western fighters were meant to intercept bombers and achieve air superiority over the battlefield.

I think that concept of two types of fighters only existed in Japan which had a purely offensive policy, the Ki-44 considered a waste of resources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 12, 2021)

Civettone said:


> I tend to get passionate about underrated aircraft, rather than the overrated ones.


And I could have focused instead on the Wildcat as being unfairly criticized, and made a good case of it. But I think I would list the P-39 as being the *most* unfairly-maligned American fighter; after all, many of the top-scoring Allied aces got all or most of their kills with P-39s. Of course those Airacobras had red stars on them, but they were excellent planes for the job for which they were used on the Eastern Front, which did not require high-altitude capability. 
But I still focus on the Zero, not because it wasn't really *quite* as good as the hype, but because it was *way* worse than its hype. It got so much hero-worship because of just one trait (maneuverability), which turned out to be not all that critical in the real world of combat. The fact that in the long run it came out second-best to the Wildcat is the most telling fact.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 12, 2021)

Civettone said:


> Were any fighters in the West designed as dogfighters?
> 
> Or even pure interceptors? The P-38 and MiG-3 come to mind but other than that, all Western fighters were meant to intercept bombers and achieve air superiority over the battlefield.
> 
> I think that concept of two types of fighters only existed in Japan which had a purely offensive policy, the Ki-44 considered a waste of resources.


It may be up to debate what 'pure' interceptor implies (or implied), but for the late war the Me 163 springs to mind, not being less specialized than the Ki-44.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Biff, I don't agree, the RAF could have made a Spitfire do everything the A6M did they just weren't prepared to suffer the loss of the most important asset which is their pilots doing it. A PR Spit is equal to a A6M, unprotected tanks, nil armor or protection in any form, no coms, no safety gear, the A6M even had 2'' dia holes cut into the pilots seat to save weight, they then could have put aux tanks behind the pilot and slung a DT under it's belly and there you are a SpittyZero, the trouble is what happens when a plane like that flies over Europe or into Europe which is controlled airspace on both sides, it'll get butchered.


There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims there if you're talking about an early Spitfire. "Could have, should have." You just don't start adding things to a basic airframe without giving something up. Didn't the Spitfire design eventually grow to meet expanded requirements? That's what needed to happen (and eventually did).











A PR spit was designed for a specific mission and shouldn't even be considered here.

I believe early Spitfires had some advantages over the Zero (of the same timeframe) and "could have" been flown effectively if proper tactics were employed, one of the reasons why RAAF Spitfires did not do well over Darwin (although it was mentioned earlier that most RAAF Spits lost over Darwin to Zeros occurred while they were attacking bombers). No, IMO you're not going to make a "SpittyZero" just by adding extra fuel and using drop tanks, a total redesign would have to be undertaken if you're going to compete in all performance areas with the Zero.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2021)

NTGray said:


> And I could have focused instead on the Wildcat as being unfairly criticized, and made a good case of it. But I think I would list the P-39 as being the *most* unfairly-maligned American fighter; after all, many of the top-scoring Allied aces got all or most of their kills with P-39s. Of course those Airacobras had red stars on them, but they were excellent planes for the job for which they were used on the Eastern Front, which did not require high-altitude capability.
> But I still focus on the Zero, not because it wasn't really *quite* as good as the hype, but because it was *way* worse than its hype. It got so much hero-worship because of just one trait (maneuverability), which turned out to be not all that critical in the real world of combat. The fact that in the long run it came out second-best to the Wildcat is the most telling fact.


Yes, it was manoeuvrable. But it also had excellent range, good firepower and climb rate. The fact that the Americans were able to overcome these traits may have had more to do with superior tactics and, gradually, better training.

But agree, the Zero was hyped and at the time, was presented as superior to anything the Americans had. If that holds merit or not, is one thing but in the end, it all depends on WHO tells the story. In my opinion, the media plays a big part in simplifying the narrative. ('Zero was better than anything we had. It was this and that ... But then we designed the Hellcat. And then ....')

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Didn't the Spitfire design eventually grow to meet expanded requirements? That's what needed to happen (and eventually did) to meet expanded performance requirements.


We would have to define "grow"

The Spit started with a 242 sq ft wing. Fuselage length only grew to the extent of the longer engine/s (and bigger prop hubs) and broader rudder. 

More power was certainly added and more armament was fitted and some airframes got more fuel. Gross weight went up considerably but the basic airframe didn't change size.

The Zero got more power and more (or better) guns. Gross weight increased. 

Many planes got heavier, very few (if any?) got lighter. 

Some planes ran out of room to fit more "stuff" and/or ran out of power or wing area to support more "stuff". 
There was a limit to what you could cram into (or under) a 109 or Yak for example. 

And yes there a lot of claims about what could have been done with the early Spitfire. 




That fixed pitch prop has a lot to answer for 
Had the Spitfire been designed from the start to use something other than a WW I tech level propeller perhaps they would have done things differently? 
But the Spit was not a small as some people imagine. Due to luck/happenstance some of the features allowed for latter upgrades more easily than some other aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> *We would have to define "grow"*
> 
> The Spit started with a 242 sq ft wing. Fuselage length only grew to the extent of the longer engine/s (and bigger prop hubs) and broader rudder.
> 
> ...


Everything you mentioned!  Redesigns, airframe size growing (and of course weight increasing)



> There was a limit to what you could cram into (or under) a 109 or Yak for example.


Exactly! Some folks don't understand that!


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Everything you mentioned!  Redesigns, airframe size growing (and of course weight increasing)
> 
> 
> Exactly! Some folks don't understand that!


 For the Spit the front D spar allowed for fuel tanks to put into the wing leading edge. I have no idea if that was planned in 1936-37 but the volume was there. On the 109 with it's much smaller wing the volume to put in wing tanks, even small ones, was much more restricted. Spitfire, once heavier engines and propellers were used, already had the volume in the rear fuselage to fit more fuel tanks (CG was still an issue). 
Same with guns, The Spit wing had a lot of room between the front Spar and the rear spar/flap attachment point ( I don't want to revisit the one vs two spar debate) to fit large guns, at least lengthwise. Some air craft with multi spar wings (3-5 spars) needed a lot more hole punching and reinforcement to fit more or large wing guns than the original design. Yes the Spit went through a variety of wing versions but it didn't change basic shape or construction until the MK 22 or so.

P-40s grew 20 in in length to put give the vertical fin and rudder more authority to counter act changes up front (bigger air scoop/more power). FW 190Ds got a longer rear fuselage. 

P-3* was turned into the P-63 to fit two stage supercharged engine  


The Spit would need some redesign to fit some of the coulda/shoulda's but it needed less than some other designs as evidenced by the fact that a lot was done later with minimal changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> And yes there a lot of claims about what could have been done with the early Spitfire.
> View attachment 648064
> 
> That fixed pitch prop has a lot to answer for
> Had the Spitfire been designed from the start to use something other than a WW I tech level propeller perhaps they would have done things differently?


It may be of interest to note that the shortcomings of the early prop led, in part, to the introduction of 100 octane fuel, in order to improve take-off performance. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg (Nice Photo btw)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> For the Spit the front D spar allowed for fuel tanks to put into the wing leading edge. I have no idea if that was planned in 1936-37 but the volume was there. On the 109 with it's much smaller wing the volume to put in wing tanks, even small ones, was much more restricted. Spitfire, once heavier engines and propellers were used, already had the volume in the rear fuselage to fit more fuel tanks (CG was still an issue).
> Same with guns, The Spit wing had a lot of room between the front Spar and the rear spar/flap attachment point ( I don't want to revisit the one vs two spar debate) to fit large guns, at least lengthwise. Some air craft with multi spar wings (3-5 spars) needed a lot more hole punching and reinforcement to fit more or large wing guns than the original design. Yes the Spit went through a variety of wing versions but it didn't change basic shape or construction until the MK 22 or so.
> 
> P-40s grew 20 in in length to put give the vertical fin and rudder more authority to counter act changes up front (bigger air scoop/more power). FW 190Ds got a longer rear fuselage.
> ...


All good but remember - just because you have "volume" doesn't mean it can be filled without structural modification. Say you can put fuel tanks in the leading leading edges, what's going to happen to that wing under g loads? Heavier more powerful engines means more torque and more loads to the airframe. Strengthening will be required = more weight, but I think you know all this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 12, 2021)

Mike Williams said:


> It may be of interest to note that the shortcomings of the early prop led, in part, to the introduction of 100 octane fuel, in order to improve take-off performance. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg


I only discovered recently that 100-octane fuel might not have happened in time had it not been for some people who pushed against the conventional wisdom of the day:








How High-Octane Gasoline Saved Untold Allied Pilots During WWII


Aviation legend Jimmy Doolittle pioneered a type of gas that made Allied planes faster and more lethal, helping us win battles and the war.




sofrep.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All good but remember - just because you have "volume" doesn't mean it can be filled without structural modification. Say you can put fuel tanks in the leading leading edges, what's going to happen to that wing under g loads? Heavier more powerful engines means more torque and more loads to the airframe. Strengthening will be required = more weight, but I think you know all this.


I quite agree, but if you don't have the volume in the first place????
P-47N wing? Add wing root and then clip wing tips. Structural changes/strengthening? 

P-38 Put intercoolers in the engine nacelle, use wing leading edge for fuel. 55 gallons of fuel in the outer wing leading edge is going to need some beefing up and recalculation but it beats having no volume to stick the fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2021)

NTGray said:


> I only discovered recently that 100-octane fuel might not have happened in time had it not been for some people who pushed against the conventional wisdom of the day:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fate often plays a part. Henry Tizard of the Tizard Mission to USA and the British aeronautical research committee was previously reader in Chemical Thermodynamics at Oxford where his work on Toluene numbers led to the Octane rating system itself. Henry Tizard - Wikipedia


There are two issues, one is the performance of engines with 100 Octane fuel, reliability etc. The other is producing it in huge volume with all engines being able to run all fuels.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2021)

Higher octane/performance number fuel was coming, it was a question of when.
Howard Hughes set a speed record in 1935 using 100 octane fuel. At the time it cost about 10 times what regular aviation fuel did per gallon so until the "production" problem was solved it remained more of goal than a factor in operations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Higher octane/performance number fuel was coming, it was a question of when.
> Howard Hughes set a speed record in 1935 using 100 octane fuel. At the time it cost about 10 times what regular aviation fuel did per gallon so until the "production" problem was solved it remained more of goal than a factor in operations.


Any idea when the US Army and/or Navy went over to 100 octane?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2021)

The USAAC established 100 Octane as their standard in 1937, the USN followed shortly after.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 12, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The USAAC established 100 Octane as their standard in 1937, the USN followed shortly after.



I remember in reading Gen Doolittle's memoirs that he played a part in 100-O fuel development while he was a rep for Shell.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I remember in reading Gen Doolittle's memoirs that he played a part in 100-O fuel while he was a rep for Shell.


He was, indeed.
His degree in aeronautics coupled with his racing experience gave him a great deal of insight.

Doolittle was quite forward thinking in many respects and he wasn't afraid to "rock the boat" in order to get things done, too - it's interesting to think how the course of events during the 30's and 40's would have played out if he wasn't there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 12, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> He was, indeed.
> His degree in aeronautics coupled with his racing experience gave him a great deal of insight.
> 
> Doolittle was quite forward thinking in many respects and he wasn't afraid to "rock the boat" in order to get things done, too - it's interesting to think how the course of events during the 30's and 40's would have played out if he wasn't there.



IIRC his was the first doctorate of Aero Engineering awarded in America. One of the few guys to survive the GeeBee, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 12, 2021)

And a leader that lead per example. Thats is rare in modern times.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> We would have to define "grow"
> 
> The Spit started with a 242 sq ft wing. Fuselage length only grew to the extent of the longer engine/s (and bigger prop hubs) and broader rudder.
> 
> ...


Hi
Best not to get too carried away with the two-bladed prop as only the first 77 built had it, by the start of WW2 Spitfires mainly had three-bladed two pitch props, like the Spitfires, in the image below, at Hornchurch in June 1939:





The Spitfire prototype was used to try out a number of different propeller types according to Jeffrey Quill:




The Rotol constant speed unit was also being tried out by December 1939, although CS units needed the Merlin III fitted to the aircraft:




All info from Morgan and Shacklady.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Best not to get too carried away with the two-bladed prop as only the first 77 built had it, by the start of WW2 Spitfires mainly had three-bladed two pitch props, like the Spitfires, in the image below, at Hornchurch in June 1939:
> View attachment 648103
> 
> ...


I know close to nothing about propellers but I would think that the detail of a three bladed two speed or CS prop depends on the actual power of the engine, so every improvement in the Merlin especially the use of 100 Octane fuel would require a change.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Best not to get too carried away with the two-bladed prop as only the first 77 built had it, by the start of WW2 Spitfires mainly had three-bladed two pitch props, like the Spitfires, in the image below, at Hornchurch in June 1939:



Not disputing the introduction of the newer propellers but that was 2-3 years after K.5054 first flew so one has to assume that the plane was "designed" to use the fix pitch prop, for good or evil. 

see Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report

for some of the changes in performance the newer propellers could offer, even with 87 octane fuel.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Not disputing the introduction of the newer propellers but that was 2-3 years after K.5054 first flew so one has to assume that the plane was "designed" to use the fix pitch prop, for good or evil.
> 
> see Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report
> 
> for some of the changes in performance the newer propellers could offer, even with 87 octane fuel.


The universal shaft for variable and CS props was first put on the Merlin Mk III. So the commitment was there for CS props, but which prop?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> I'm not claiming that the Zero was a *bad* airplane, but I am saying it was not a *great* airplane.



Perspective counts. The Zero is ranked as one of the Great aeroplanes of WW2. The hype and reputation, which as an American colours your perspective of it changes peoples opinions of it, but the facts about it mean that it was most certainly one of the best aircraft carrier based fighters in the world between 1941 and 1943, if not one of the best fighters in service anywhere.



PAT303 said:


> I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?



No, it was an aircraft carrier based fighter, designed as such and it did what it was designed to do very well indeed. In answer to your proposed question, had the Japanese had a time machine and Zeros replaced Bf 109s, why not? It had cannon armament, it had far better range than the Bf 109 and the defending Spitfires and Hurricanes, it could dogfight as well as, if not better than the other three types and it had good performance, good climb rate etc. As for the crossing the Channel into France in 1941, it was a bad idea at any rate, so the RAF shouldn't have been doing it in the first place; the loss rate of RAF fighters was horrendous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 13, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Not disputing the introduction of the newer propellers but that was 2-3 years after K.5054 first flew so one has to assume that the plane was "designed" to use the fix pitch prop, for good or evil.
> 
> see Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report
> 
> for some of the changes in performance the newer propellers could offer, even with 87 octane fuel.


Hi
The Spitfire was hardly unusual in the prototype flying with a fixed pitch propeller along with early production examples, the same applied to the Bf 109. The latter prototype flew in 1935 with a RR Kestrel and a fixed pitch prop, the first production examples, Bf 109B went into service (in the Spring of 1937) with JG 132 "Richthofen", although now re-engined, were also fitted with the two-bladed wooden Schwarz fixed pitch prop. The first 109s used in Spain also had these props. Later production Bf 109Bs were fitted with a variable-pitch two-bladed metal VDM-Hamilton prop.
So both Spitfire and Bf 109 were 'designed' to use fixed-pitch props, both types changed to variable-pitch and then constant-speed by 1940, when both were probably the 'best' fighters in the world at that time, I don't see why you appear to believe the Spitfire had some 'unique?' problem for good or evil, later in life due to flying initially with a fixed-pitch prop?

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The Zero is ranked as one of the Great aeroplanes of WW2. . . the facts about it mean that it was most certainly one of the best aircraft carrier based fighters in the world between 1941 and 1943, if not one of the best fighters in service anywhere.


Well, that is exactly what is under discussion here. What do the "facts" actually say? The fact that I think is most important is that in early 1942, when the Zero gained its reputation, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio favored the Zero by only 1.5 to one, which is not that big an advantage. By the beginning of 1943, after the Americans had learned how to use the Wildcat's advantages effectively, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio had swung to favor the Wildcat by nearly 6 to 1. This indicates that the superior maneuverability of the Zero (that part is not under question) was not enough to guarantee victory. The Wildcat's advantages (ruggedness, diving speed, a radio), along with superior pilot tactics and training (especially in gunnery) more than outweighed the Zero's advantages.


----------



## special ed (Nov 13, 2021)

If the Zero & Ki-43 had not been available, there would have little to fight against, hence rapid Pacific war completion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Well, that is exactly what is under discussion here. What do the "facts" actually say? The fact that I think is most important is that in early 1942, when the Zero gained its reputation, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio favored the Zero by only 1.5 to one, which is not that big an advantage. By the beginning of 1943, after the Americans had learned how to use the Wildcat's advantages effectively, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio had swung to favor the Wildcat by nearly 6 to 1. This indicates that the superior maneuverability of the Zero (that part is not under question) was not enough to guarantee victory. The Wildcat's advantages (ruggedness, diving speed, a radio), along with superior pilot tactics and training (especially in gunnery) more than outweighed the Zero's advantages.


The A6M was not just fighting American aircraft, so you have to broaden your perspective to get a better focus.

It was engaging a wide range of Allied types with considerable success, and that is where it's status comes from.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 13, 2021)

Bearing in mind and in full disclosure, of course, that I am a dyed in the wool F4F booster (wouldn't be here without it) between the A6M2 and the F4F, truth be told, they were probably pretty close to equal with the positive qualities of one canceled out by the positive qualities of the other. Analysis of actions in the first year of the war suggests that F4Fs and A6M2s fought to a standstill with perhaps maybe one more F4F than A6M2 being lost in air to air combat. One can talk all day about the nuts and bolts of speed, wing loading, and what not, but the proof is in the actual air combat arena.

The F4F was marginally slower than the A6M2 at their top ends, but the F4F remained maneuverable at top speed while the A6M2 suffered from frozen ailerons and an inability to roll to the right and an engine cutoff problem under conditions of negative G. These interesting phenomena was noticed in the evaluation of the A6M2 recovered from the Aleutians and was quickly communicated to the VF/VMF squadrons. Two separate, unrelated, Allied evaluations, one in California and the other in China noted these deficiencies.

LCDR Eddie Sanders, XO of Flight Test at NAS Anacostia, was sent to NAS San Diego where he was first to fly the rebuilt A6M2 captured in the Aleutians noting the float type carburetor and specifically in his report of 29 September 1942, "Engine quits on push-overs." Sanders also reported, "Ailerons get very stiff at higher speeds making fast rolls at high speed (above 250 knots) physically impossible. At 200 knots the rate of roll (with ailerons) is slightly slower than an F4F. At lower speeds the Zero probably has an increasing advantage in any rolling maneuvers since it is highly maneuverable."

In China with the 23rd​ Fighter Group, LTC Bruce Holloway, CO of the 23rd​, noted in his flight evaluation of 6 February 1943 with regards to an A6M2 recovered near Teitsan on the
southeastern coast of Luichow Peninsula: ". . . at 300 m.p.h. requires a great deal of force on the controls for even a gentle turn. At these speeds the airplane is very stable, and especially so about the longitudinal axis. It has no tendency to roll in a dive, at 300 m.p.h. it is practically impossible to make it roll," "At speeds above 200 m.p.h. indicated, it is believed impossible to exert enough pressure on the elevators to cause the airplane to stall. This was not actually tried, however, for fear of a structural failure," and "the engine will not run under any conditions of negative acceleration, inverted or in a steep skid. A Zero is unable to follow any airplane which does a sharp pushover unless it rolls and it cannot roll at high speed." Holloway also noted the view over the nose problem, "Visibility is very poor directly ahead and down."

The lessons here were clear. The A6M2 was extremely dangerous in a mid to low speed, turn and burn, type gunfight. The F4F drivers knew that speed was life and, with the USN pilots, almost from the initial encounter at Coral Sea declined to play that game. The USMC F4F pilots only needed a couple of lessons to adopt the same attitude. After the analysis of the captured A6M2 was completed, the word quickly went forth, keep your speed up and do not dogfight with a Zero.

The F4Fs ruggedness was almost legendary. It could, and did, absorb damage that a fraction of which would leave an A6M2 spiraling off in flames. This same ability made the beam defense developed by Jimmie Thach a viable tactic that presented a difficult nut for the A6M2 drivers to crack.

Part of that equation comes from tactics and tactical formations generally. The USN/USMC squadrons operated in two plane sections and four plane divisions. Sections could be internally supportive one with one and externally supportive in divisions, two with two. The Japanese, on the other hand were saddled with the three-plane section, nine-plane division, a practice that looks nice in air shows and was more suitable for WWI type tactics. The 3-9 set up, indeed, evolved during WWI as it provides a better lookout doctrine in the biplane world. The 2-4 set up takes advantage of the monoplane construction with no overhead and forward wing to block the view. While one might think that the greater numbers would work to the Japanese advantage, in practice it was hard to maintain section cohesiveness. Oft times the third man in a section turned out to be the odd man out and it was he who was sure to get burned in an approach on weaving F4Fs. The USN/USMC fighter pilots were already experimenting with, and some squadrons had firmly established, the 2-4 formations before they ever got into the war. The Japanese maintained their 3-9 formations into 1944.

There are other things to consider. The favorite attack from the Japanese was the aft overhead run. The F4F types, having some experience from their per-war training, were well acquainted with the defense for this problem. The defense was the logical extension of their own attack training in deflection gunnery. So, when an attacker starts his run, the F4F driver throws it over to offer only a full deflection shot . . . a tough shot to make without considerable practice, and especially in an A6M2. The position of the cockpit relative to the nose of the A6M2 forced the A6M2 driver, in a full deflection situation (see Holloway's comment), to drop the nose in order to get a sight picture and then raise it in order to fire at a location in space where he expects the F4F to be when the bullets get there. An alert F4F pilot, finding himself on his own with an A6M2 boring in on him and setting up the full deflection problem as his first move, can spot this action. As the nose goes up, the A6M2 guy momentarily loses sight of the F4F, and the F4F breaks off in another direction (preferably down and to the right . . . remember the A6M2 problem with rolling right), leaving the A6M2 firing at nothing. In a defensive weave situation, it gets even worse for the A6M2 guy as the raising of the A6M2 nose to take a full deflection shot at one quarry leaves it completely vulnerable for an underside head-on (and near zero deflection) shot from the F4F approaching from the opposite tact if in a Thach Weave situation. The F4F did not suffer from this design problem. The nose of the plane sloped gently down from the pilot's position in the cockpit, allowing full time observation of an opponent in a full deflection situation.

Armament is another issue. The F4F-3 carried four 50-caliber guns. This seemed to work as advertised at Coral Sea for VF-2 and VF-42. For the most part it was also enough to at least ensure survival for the few USMC F4F-3's at Midway. The F4F-4 was "improved" with folding wings (squadrons went from 18 -3's to 28 -4's) and a battery of six 50-caliber guns. Unfortunately, there was no improvement in the engine, so the added weight of the folding mechanisms and the two extra guns presented a problem. Additionally, the two additional guns resulted in less ammunition per gun, hence less firing time. Some pilots felt quite strongly that the change to six guns did not help the situation. Jimmie Thach remarked that if a pilot was not going to hit with four guns, he certainly was not going to hit with six. So, the F4F-4's performance was nominally degraded by these changes, with losses in the speed and climbing ability arenas. The A6M2 carried two 7.7 machine-guns firing synchronized through the propeller arc and a 20 mm cannon in each wing. Ammunition for the 20 mm was limited to about, without looking it up, 80 rounds per gun. The standard practice was for the A6M2 pilot to cut loose with his 7.7's for ranging (the 20 mm was somewhat short ranged) and then let go with the 20 mm's when on target. This pitter-patter of 7.7 could be another warning for an, up to that point, unwary F4F guy to get out of Dodge. The twin 7.7 was a typical 1930s, WWI rifle ammunition holdover. Against a plane armored such as the F4F they were relatively worthless.

So . . .

Speed - A6M2 is better, but it was not necessarily an advantage due to the maneuverability and engine cutoff problems. The F4F could out-dive an A6M2 any day and at top speed was more than more maneuverable. Offsetting advantages and disadvantages. 0 points.

Armament - F4F was better with the battery of six 50 cals outweighing the MG and cannon arrangement of the A6M2 in terms of range and impact. With only four 50 cals in the F4F-3 and the later FM series the weight was about equal, but "Ma-Deuce" was a much better gun. F4F, 1 point

Armor protection - F4F hands down … A6M2? What armor? F4F, 1 point.

Maneuverability – Goes to the A6M2, especially at low to mid speeds. Advantage goes away at top end speeds. The F4F was generally a better, more stable, firing platform as well; the A6M2, much more sensitive to control pressures, sometimes had a tendency to skid in firing situations (this tidbit from a USN F4F type ace who had the opportunity to fly B/N 4593, the famous Koga Zero, on several occasions in the fall of 1944). A6M2, 0.5 points

Climb - goes to the A6M2. F4F was not even in the park. A6M2, 1 point

Range – A6M2, but this led them into arrangements of long distance missions with minimal combat time and a long haul back, possibly with damage, such as in the Guadalcanal campaign, with little or no hope of air-sea rescue. The greater range was really only an advantage in terms ferrying from outpost to outpost or of loiter time in a CAP situation. Historically, the A6M2's range created more problems than it solved when it came to encounters with F4F's. 0 points.

Score (on my unofficial scale): F4F - 2; A6M2 - 1.5

My pick, in terms of survivability, which, of course is the bottom line, is the F4F. You can't fly combat if hits from a good solid burst tend to cause your plane to explode.

Regards,

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> . . . truth be told, they were probably pretty close to equal with the positive qualities of one canceled out by the positive qualities of the other.


Exactly. One outstanding quality does not equal an overall superior airplane. (Two if you count range, but range has nothing to do with combat capability. As with the P-51 in the ETO, range only means that you can get the airplane to where you want it. After that it's all a matter of how good the plane itself is.)

Your "score sheet" was very thorough, and you covered in depth a part that many people probably don't know, which is that the huge maneuverability advantage only existed at lower speeds, was less at moderate speeds, and disappeared completely at high speed, where the Zero's ailerons were practically frozen.

Also (and this deals with the skill of the pilot rather than the virtues of the airplane), under the heading of "better tactics and training" I have found multiple mentions of the Wildcat pilots being better shots, with better training in deflection shots. The Zero pilots are said to be not equal to the Wildcat pilots in this area, even in the beginning when the Japanese pilots had a clear lead in flight hours and combat experience.

But what do you know about the radios? Since a radio is part of the airplane, a Zero not having one was a major disadvantage for the airplane itself. But was that lack corrected later on? I have not yet found a source that stated that radios were ever installed on Zeros, yet that seems hard to believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

Early Japanese radios were plagued with RFI from the ignition system, I suspect improper shielding and/or grounding being the culprit.
I am not sure if that issue was ever corrected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 13, 2021)

Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

I found this post on this forum thread Spitfire Mk I, II and IIa's - Prop fittings There was a lot going on at the time which looks to me like 54 squadron doing R&D for the Spitfire MkI and the later Spitfire Mk II

The Supplement to the Merlin II Handbook for the Series III, IV & X Engines Revised and printed in March 1940 by RR gives the following options for propellers.
Fixed pitch Airscrew
Two-pitch Airscrew
Variable Pitch Airscrew, Rotol Internal Cylinder
Variable Pitch Airscrew, De Havilland with centrifugal weights
Variable Pitch Airscrew, Rotol External Cylinder, feathering & non feathering types.
Variable Pitch Airscrew, De Havilland Hydromatic, feathering type.
From a table of airscrew types in another publication the early Spitfires were fitted with the following Dowty props. as follows:-
Spitfire I RX5/4 magnesium blades
Spitfire II RX5/1 magnesium blades
Spitfire II RX5/3 Jablo or Hydulignum
These were all constant speed peopellers.
Mention is also made of Spitfire D being fitted with both RX and RS props with Weybridge blades.

​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> But what do you know about the radios? Since a radio is part of the airplane


 A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?


It did

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

The KI-43's one main drawback, was it's armament.
It only had two cowl-mounted rifle caliber machine guns: 7.7mm, later upgraded to 12mm.
Had it possessed even two more machine guns (let alone canon, like the A6M), it would have been a more potent adversary.
As it was, the Hayabusa was dangerous to an Allied fighter, but came up short against Allied bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 13, 2021)

Thanks GrauGeist. Maybe I should have said the Ki-43 was the best fighter of WW 1. Same armament. 
Did the Ki-43 suffer the same high speed control issues the A6M2 did?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A radio is "an accessory" that is used to enhance the mission. From a tactical standpoint it is a necessary but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.


Radios were new at the time, veterans will have been used to not having them and they spent most of their time out of range of ground / ship based radio anyway, so maybe not as much as a disadvantage as for some others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway.



Please tell that to Hurricane pilot Billy Drake of 1 Sqn whose life was saved by seat armour when he was shot down over France on 13 May 1940. Paul Richey's famous account of the Battle of France, "Fighter Pilot" also mentions his squadron CO acquiring armour plate and fitting it to the Hurricanes of 1 Sqn during the Phoney War. These accounts suggest RAF fighter squadrons were adding armour plate long before the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Please tell that to Hurricane pilot Billy Drake of 1 Sqn whose life was saved by seat armour when he was shot down over France on 13 May 1940. Paul Richey's famous account of the Battle of France, "Fighter Pilot" also mentions his squadron CO acquiring armour plate and fitting it to the Hurricanes of 1 Sqn during the Phoney War. These accounts suggest RAF fighter squadrons were adding armour plate long before the Battle of Britain.


Even on this thread it is easy to see how things get confused. There is an assumption that nothing happened in the phoney war, maybe not on the ground but not true in the air. The whole battle of France and the Low Countries lasted 10 weeks and Dunkerque came before its conclusion. MikeMeech's posts are obviously true but they are about what was planned, not what actually happened. AFIK some Hurricanes were sent to France in the Phoney war without armour but by the time the actual Battle of France started they were kitted out with rear armour for the pilot, 100 Octane fuel and variable pitch props.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A radio is "an accessory". . . but if you're looking at just the flight performance of two aircraft side-by-side it's really a non-player.


Technically you are of course correct, but you _can't_ look at _just_ the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.

So, getting back to the radios, if you have two opposing "teams," both flying identical airplanes except one team's planes have radios and the other team's don't, the planes with radios give that team a major advantage toward winning the battle, because the leader of that team can give specific, detailed instructions to his other pilots. So I definitely count the Wildcat radios as a point in that plane's favor.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Technically you are of course correct, but you _can't_ look at _just_ the flight performance. You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.


The downward sloping nose was a feature of dedicated carrier planes, it allows the plane to land on a straight approach to the carrier but has a cost in speed. Carrier planes like the F4U and Seafire had to land on a curved approach.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

"cowling"


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> "cowling"


"Heifer" Yorkshire joke a heifer, is a young cow. Edit, just looked on the internet and it is also used in USA. Heifers are as stupid as bullocks, just in a different way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> "cowling"


No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not.


----------



## GregP (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray, I know people who fly a Zero. You CAN see out of it forward. The target is NOT hidden. Where did you ever get THAT from? Hidden would be the view from an F4U COrsair cockpit. By comparison, the Zero is a bay window.

The World's most experienced test pilot, Eric Brown, said the Zero was the most pleasant-flying airplane he ever flew, and it was his favorite, if he had to pick ONE. That opinion alone makes a lot of what had been said in here sort of like a ,"What? Where did THAT come from?" The Zero's armament of two cannons and two MGs is nowhere NEAR equal to 4 Browning 50's. It's way ahead. The Type 99 Mk 2 was slightly more effective than an Oerlikon FF F and, alone, would make that wrong. Exploding ammunition is superior to 50-cal MG ball ammunition every day, all day.

There was and IS nothing wrong with the Zero that 350 - 450 more hp and some control surface mechanical advantage adjustment would not have taken care of. I know, it never GOT that hp or the control system adjustments. But, it was still a dangerous adversary in 1945. There are many Allied pilots whose could attest to that if they were still around to do so.

It may have been slightly overrated in the early war period, but you are definitely under-rating it severely, at least from my vantage point. Opinions vary, like your gas mileage. But, the A6M Zero was a good airplane and still is.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> No, the cowling is just the part that wraps around the engine and has adjustable openings at its rear. And I think that "nose" suggests the same thing. But a "hood" is almost the whole top front of a car ahead of the windshield. Likewise, the entire front of a Wildcat, from the canopy to the front edge of the cowling, sloped downward. And, yes, this was a feature of many carrier-based planes precisely because it gave better visibility during the landing approach and while taxiing, but not every carrier plane had this feature. Corsairs did not. . .and Zeros did not.


On an aircraft, the material that covers the engine area is refered to as: "cowling".

For example:
The Bf109 had two cowl mounted machine guns.

A few years back, a Boeing 777 lost a cowling while enroute to Hawaii.

Etc., etc., etc...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> *Technically you are of course correct, but you can't look at just the flight performance. *


Again you're confusing tactical aspects with a technical comparison. As stated, a radio is an accessory. 


NTGray said:


> You have to look at every part of the plane that helps it accomplish its mission. That includes little things like the Wildcat's downward-sloping nose (or "hood" if the car term makes it clearer) that gave the pilot better forward visibility when aiming his guns. The Zero pilot literally could not see the targeted plane if he was trying to "lead" it when shooting from behind. That made a real difference in gunnery accuracy.


I think you're splitting hairs there. Is this your opinion or do have a flight test report that addresses this? Not to sound crass but you don't have to break this down for me. I worked in aviation for 42 years before I retired and I worked around a few warbirds and even flown a few...


NTGray said:


> So, getting back to the radios, if you have two opposing "teams," both flying identical airplanes except one team's planes have radios and the other team's don't, the planes with radios give that team a major advantage toward winning the battle, because the leader of that team can give specific, detailed instructions to his other pilots. So I definitely count the Wildcat radios as a point in that plane's favor.


Radios do give a tactical advantage providing you see your enemy and are working up tactics and a firing solution to deal with the threat. Most aircraft shot down in aerial combat never saw what hit them.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 13, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?



I don't know if the Ki-43 controls stiffened up at high speeds but the Ki-43-I that was operational in Dec 1941 did suffer from wing structural weakness. One aircraft of the 64th Sentai crashed when its wings folded while pulling out of a dive during combat in Malaya. An inspection of other aircraft after that incident revealed several airframes with wrinkled wing surfaces. The issue was corrected in later versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2021)

GregP said:


> The World's most experienced test pilot, Eric Brown, said the Zero was the most pleasant-flying airplane he ever flew, and it was his favorite, if he had to pick ONE. That opinion alone makes a lot of what had been said in here wort of like a ,"What? Where did THAT come from?"


Since Brown could land almost anything from a P-39 to a Mosquito on a carrier I imagine he just told a Zero to land and it did it by itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 13, 2021)

A couple of thoughts here.

First, the ability to and how to “lead” fire on another airplane are two different things.

The ability to arrive at a point in space where your nose is in “lead” of another can be done via luck, superior maneuverability, and or superior flying skills (or a combo of these).

The amount of lead one needs varies on the set up. If the shooter is pulling hard to get his nose in lead, and the bandit is pulling hard as well, then the amount of lead will depend on range. The longer the range the further in lead the shooter will be, the further “under” the nose the target will be. The closer the target the less lead that will be needed.

If the shooter is flying along, and the bandit is doing a turn far enough out in front of him, he may not have the bandit go under his nose at all in order to shoot him. Once again it all depends on the set up.

Next, I don’t think the over the nose look required to shoot down another plane was that much different between the Zero, FW-190, Spit or P-51. I do think that Grumman did Pilot look angle well (sloping nose). The F6F, F7F, and F8F all seemed to improve on that. The Sea Fury is another plane I thought was designed with that feature in mind.

Do I think the F4F has a slight advantage in that area over the Zero, yes. Do i think it’s significant, not very. The Zero shot down enough planes, as did all the other non-Grumman aircraft, to know it wasn’t insurmountable.

R Leonard did an excellent analysis In my opinion of the Zero / F4F comparison. 

In my opinion the Zero / F4F both had strengths and weakness, however the Allies were better able to utilize tactics to overcome it’s strengths and minimize the little Grummans weak points. 

If (BIG IF) the Zero was equipped with a workable radio, with tactics built around that, operated in flights of two or four, it would have made the problem much more difficult for anyone who they tangled with them. Its lack of top speed could be offset by range & endurance. I say this as we had this exact problem in the Eagle, and had effective tactics to deal with it.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

GregP said:


> NTGray, I know people who fly a Zero. You CAN see out of it forward. The target is NOT hidden. Where did you ever get THAT from? Hidden would be the view from an F4U COrsair cockpit. By comparison, the Zero is a bay window.


From R Leonard's post #79. He doesn't say the Zero pilot can't see forward; he says that for a deflection shot the Zero had to take aim and then raise the nose slightly before pulling the trigger, thus losing sight of the target briefly. But I will quote R Leonard:


> The position of the cockpit relative to the nose of the A6M2 forced the A6M2 driver, in a full deflection situation (see Holloway's comment), to drop the nose in order to get a sight picture and then raise it in order to fire at a location in space where he expects the F4F to be when the bullets get there. An alert F4F pilot, finding himself on his own with an A6M2 boring in on him and setting up the full deflection problem as his first move, can spot this action. As the nose goes up, the A6M2 guy momentarily loses sight of the F4F, and the F4F breaks off in another direction (preferably down and to the right . . . remember the A6M2 problem with rolling right), leaving the A6M2 firing at nothing.


I have found multiple outside sources that say that American gunnery training (and actual combat results) was better in general than Japanese.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Since Brown could land almost anything from a P-39 to a Mosquito on a carrier I imagine he just told a Zero to land and it did it by itself.


Pleasant diversion:
Somebody once landed a C-130 Hercules on a carrier _on purpose_, with the Navy's blessing. But after evaluating it, they decided not to make a habit of it.
The Story of how the C-130 Hercules became the biggest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier - The Aviation Geek Club


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> From R Leonard's post #79. He doesn't say the Zero pilot can't see forward; he says that for a deflection shot the Zero had to take aim and then raise the nose slightly before pulling the trigger, thus losing sight of the target briefly. But I will quote R Leonard:


Just so you know, Mr. Leonard is an authority on WW2 naval aviation, his father Rear Admiral Leonard flew F4Fs during WW2 to include Coral Sea and Midway.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Pleasant diversion:
> Somebody once landed a C-130 Hercules on a carrier _on purpose_, with the Navy's blessing. But after evaluating it, they decided not to make a habit of it.
> The Story of how the C-130 Hercules became the biggest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier - The Aviation Geek Club


Kid's stuff! LOL!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> On an aircraft, the material that covers the engine area is refered to as: "cowling".
> 
> For example:
> The Bf109 had two cowl mounted machine guns.
> ...


The technical term is "the pointy end"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 14, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It had cannon armament, it had far better range than the Bf 109 and the defending Spitfires and Hurricanes, it could dogfight as well as, if not better than the other three types and it had good performance, good climb rate etc. As for the crossing the Channel into France in 1941, it was a bad idea at any rate, so the RAF shouldn't have been doing it in the first place; the loss rate of RAF fighters was horrendous.


Both sides were fitting armour and SS tanks as quickly as possible for a reason after the battle of France, thinking the unprotected A6M is going to survive in view of the facts is strange logic.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 14, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just so you know, Mr. Leonard is an authority on WW2 naval aviation, his father Rear Admiral Leonard flew F4Fs during WW2 to include Coral Sea and Midway.


I always appreciate learning from a genuine expert. Thanks for the added background.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 14, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Both sides were fitting armour and SS tanks as quickly as possible for a reason after the battle of France, thinking the unprotected A6M is going to survive in view of the facts is strange logic.


Hi

From Fox it appears the Germans were armouring their aircraft at the same time as the British both on the production line and retrospectively. Maybe armouring aircraft was not a lesson from the Spanish Civil War? Or just a delayed response?:









Mike

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 14, 2021)

Thank you, Mike. Got to buy this book myself


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Radios were new at the time, veterans will have been used to not having them and they spent most of their time out of range of ground / ship based radio anyway, so maybe not as much as a disadvantage as for some others.


Hi
Not exactly 'new' but not as advanced as later sets. The British were using voice to and from its fighters (a requirement for the air defence system) from the Gloster Grebe (not counting WW1 use) HF T.25 transmitter and R.31 Receiver from the mid-1920, in the 1930s this was replaced by the TR 9 series. While I don't think the FAA Fairey Flycatcher was fitted with voice (R/T) its replacement the Hawker Nimrod was (by TR 9 according to various sources) in the early 1930s. I would presume the US Navy and US Army were doing the same so most 'veterans' should have been used to using it by WW2. Morse sets were longer ranged of course and they would have been in use by naval air throughout the inter-war period, although operator skill would have been a major factor plus reliability but still more reliable than in WW1.

Mike


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 14, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Thank you, Mike. Got to buy this book myself


I'll second that sentiment. I ordered my copy of that book a couple of days ago after a previous post of MikeMeech's.


----------



## MikeMeech (Nov 14, 2021)

Mike Williams said:


> I'll second that sentiment. I ordered my copy of that book a couple of days ago after a previous post of MikeMeech's.


Hi
Yes it is a very good book for the subject, however, it does miss out on some of the armour fitments used by the RAF during 1918 so may miss some other information in later periods. Saying that it is probably the best book on the subject I can think of.

Mike


----------



## pbehn (Nov 14, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Not exactly 'new' but not as advanced as later sets. The British were using voice to and from its fighters (a requirement for the air defence system) from the Gloster Grebe (not counting WW1 use) HF T.25 transmitter and R.31 Receiver from the mid-1920, in the 1930s this was replaced by the TR 9 series. While I don't think the FAA Fairey Flycatcher was fitted with voice (R/T) its replacement the Hawker Nimrod was (by TR 9 according to various sources) in the early 1930s. I would presume the US Navy and US Army were doing the same so most 'veterans' should have been used to using it by WW2. Morse sets were longer ranged of course and they would have been in use by naval air throughout the inter-war period, although operator skill would have been a major factor plus reliability but still more reliable than in WW1.
> 
> Mike


Hi, I meant Japanese veterans, since they had trouble with the sets during the war they obviously had trouble before. The British were upgrading their radios constantly up to and during the BoB, prior to the war they needed booster transmitter receivers to take the radio to the aircraft and operators specially selected for clear speech in sound proofed rooms. Even with all that was done a BOB RAF set was very short ranged in maritime terms.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 14, 2021)

NTGray said:


> From R Leonard's post #79. He doesn't say the Zero pilot can't see forward; he says that for a deflection shot the Zero had to take aim and then raise the nose slightly before pulling the trigger, thus losing sight of the target briefly. But I will quote R Leonard:
> 
> I have found multiple outside sources that say that American gunnery training (and actual combat results) was better in general than Japanese.


I'd bet all those sources were written by Americans, or at least by the Allied side.

The Japanese definitely had superior pilots at the start of the war, gunnery or otherwise, if only by virtue of being combat-tested veterans. Being a combat veteran simply means you've made mistakes in combat and survived them. Hopefully it means you will be reluctant to make them again. As the Japanese lost their veteran pilots, their training could not keep up with attrition, so late in the war ... yes, I'm sure we had better pilots. Not solely by virtue of better gunnery training, but by virtue of it being the U.S.A. who had more combat veterans and not the fresh Japanese pilots. We trained and deployed more pilots after 1942 than the Japanese had for the entire war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 14, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Japanese definitely had superior pilots at the start of the war, gunnery or otherwise, if only by virtue of being combat-tested veterans.


That's the way I've always understood it, but even now I keep finding out new things, and I've been reading that American fighter gunnery, in training and in combat, was actually better than Japanese gunnery even at the very beginning. I didn't know that before.


----------



## GregP (Nov 14, 2021)

I've been studying this for more than 50 years, and I don't believe that is the case. I could be mistaken. So could you.

Are any of your sources from the WWII era, or are they later than about 1955, when people started making things up about the war?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 15, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> From Fox it appears the Germans were armouring their aircraft at the same time as the British both on the production line and retrospectively. Maybe armouring aircraft was not a lesson from the Spanish Civil War? Or just a delayed response?:


Fitting armour was from lessons learnt in actual combat and my biggest negative against the A6M, the most important asset an air force has are the pilots and it's the planes job to protect them if things went pear shaped, the Zero didn't do that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 15, 2021)

Wasn't it _First Team_ that pointed out that USN training included deflection shooting while Japanese training did not?

I'm working on the Corsair right now (again). BuAer records show that the XF4U-1 pilot could see less than 2 degrees over the long nose, but that was considered adequate in 1938 during the design period. With the production cockpit moved 30 inches aft, the view dropped even further. Combat experiences (the report doesn't distinguish whose experiences or when they occurred) pointed out the need for far better visibility over the nose, leading to the raised cockpit and about 8 degrees downward view. The Navy seemed very happy woth the improvement - the Japanese less so...

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just wondering if the Ki-43 had flaws similar to the Zero?


As I understand it, the Ki 43 did not suffer the same problem of manouverability at the high end of its speed envelope, I am however not sure about to what extent the structural problems were limited to dives, it _was_ lighter constructed than the zero. On the other hand, it got pilot protection before it, though I don't know the exact dates.

When it comes to armament, the zero's advantage is not all that clear cut. Sure, it had cannons from the start, but when the (I think it was originally 60 rounds per cannon though it increased steadily during the war) was expended, it was down to rifle caliber. There's an old thread with a link to an article somewhere on the forum about the Ki 43-I having one of its rifle caliber gun changed with a 12.7, and I believe the Ki 43-II had two 12.7's from the beginning. Not in any way impressive, but it beats two rifle caliber. Of course later on the zero got better secondary armament too.

One aspect that often seem to be ignored is their bubble canopies (or at least an all round bird cage for the zero), the usefulness of which is indicated with all the aircraft that were revised to such a feature, Spitfire, P-51, P-47, yak and La fighters to name some. It seem to have been standard Japanese design philosophy, though abandoned on J2M and Ki 61, and then revised on the latter during its reincarnation as Ki-100.

As often mentioned in the early pacific war every Japanese fighter was identified as a zero. I do believe it thus stole some of the glory that should have been assigned to the Ki-43 early in the conflict. This is one reason to consider the zero somewhat overrated, and it certainly was officially since the IJN believed each to be able to handle three or more enemy fighters at a time. Ironically at the same time most foreign observers were ignoring its results over china and thus underrating, only to overrate after the first nasty shocks in the pacific war. I don't know if the army had similar overconfidence in the Ki-43 (but as a Japanese aircraft the allied by default underrated it), anyway many consider it the most manouverable fighter of its generation. Over all I consider it somewhat underrated, it wasn't as bad as is sometimes claimed. But it is impossible to decide what the 'average' rating of both planes over time and borders has been, rating is hardly an exact science. In their original forms the zero had decided advantage in speed, armament, range and carrier capability. Claiming that it had nothing but (restricted) agility going for it is in my eyes plain wrong, and it does not deserve the title the _one_ most overrated plane of ww2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 15, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Not exactly 'new' but not as advanced as later sets. The British were using voice to and from its fighters (a requirement for the air defence system) from the Gloster Grebe (not counting WW1 use) HF T.25 transmitter and R.31 Receiver from the mid-1920, in the 1930s this was replaced by the TR 9 series. While I don't think the FAA Fairey Flycatcher was fitted with voice (R/T) its replacement the Hawker Nimrod was (by TR 9 according to various sources) in the early 1930s. I would presume the US Navy and US Army were doing the same so most 'veterans' should have been used to using it by WW2. Morse sets were longer ranged of course and they would have been in use by naval air throughout the inter-war period, although operator skill would have been a major factor plus reliability but still more reliable than in WW1.
> 
> Mike


Looking up other stuff I came across this 
Entering active service in November 1942, a contingent of Thunderbolts was dispatched to England as part of the 56th Fighter Group, under the command of the 8th Air Force. It first saw combat in March 1943, during a mission over occupied France, but due to a radio malfunction, the mission turned out to be a catastrophe.
Very soon, the P-47s stationed in England were refitted with new, English-made radio equipment, resuming active service.










The "Jug" P-47 Thunderbolt - Workhorse of WWII in 30+ Photos


Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt was the backbone of the U.S. Air Force during Second World War and was certainly one of the most iconic American aircraft,




www.warhistoryonline.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> I've been studying this for more than 50 years, and I don't believe that is the case. I could be mistaken. So could you.
> 
> Are any of your sources from the WWII era, or are they later than about 1955, when people started making things up about the war?


I agree; I could be mistaken. When you start with something you're pretty confident about, but then the discussion gets added to faster and faster and more and more things are being looked up on the fly, it is entirely possible that some of that new information should be modified thusly "I have read some _claims_ that American gunnery was better than Japanese gunnery, even at the very beginning." Those claims could well be unreliable. I stand corrected.

Having said that, I think that R Leonard's remarks about cockpit visibility and shooting technique in a Zero are persuasive, and match with the schematic drawings that I have studied (a Wildcat nose has a definite downward slope forward of the canopy; a Zero's nose does not). Add that to what we know about the lower muzzle velocity (and therefore the need for a higher shooting angle, i.e. a slightly raised nose) of the Zero's 20mm cannon, and I will accept those remarks as reliable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 15, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> . . .and it does not deserve the title the _one_ most overrated plane of ww2.


I have been putting the emphasis on _most_. I don't mean to imply it is the _only_ over-rated plane. It is just the _most_ over-rated.
Take the P-51. It "won" the vote in that other thread, and the Spitfire placed third, but both of those planes are really good airplanes. Those who call them over-rated are, I'm pretty sure, willing to admit that they are _good_, with multiple strong points, but they are not _as good as the hype_. Therefore they are over-rated (in their opinion; I happen not to agree). The Zero, on the other hand, had strong _and_ weak points that pretty much canceled each other out, but in early 1942 everybody was focusing on the strong points and hardly noticing the weaknesses. But with the benefit of hindsight we can see that the Zero really wasn't much, if any, better than the supposedly clumsy Wildcats that it flew against. Vastly _different_ from the Widcat, but not _better_. Hence it wins the _most_ over-rated prize.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 15, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Having said that, I think that R Leonard's remarks about cockpit visibility and shooting technique in a Zero are persuasive, and match with the schematic drawings that I have studied (a Wildcat nose has a definite downward slope forward of the canopy; a Zero's nose does not). Add that to what we know about the lower muzzle velocity (and therefore the need for a higher shooting angle, i.e. a slightly raised nose) of the Zero's 20mm cannon, and I will accept those remarks as reliable.


It's a valid point. However, i believe it is the Wildcat that is very much better than the average on this count, and so it's not as such an exceptional fault with the zero. I doubt very much that a Spitfire, a La-5 or a P-51 (to name a few) had a marked advantage over the zero in this respect.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

NTGray said:


> I have been putting the emphasis on _most_. I don't mean to imply it is the _only_ over-rated plane. It is just the _most_ over-rated.
> Take the P-51. It "won" the vote in that other thread, and the Spitfire placed third, but both of those planes are really good airplanes. Those who call them over-rated are, I'm pretty sure, willing to admit that they are _good_, with multiple strong points, but they are not _as good as the hype_. Therefore they are over-rated (in their opinion; I happen not to agree). The Zero, on the other hand, had strong _and_ weak points that pretty much canceled each other out, but in early 1942 everybody was focusing on the strong points and hardly noticing the weaknesses. But with the benefit of hindsight we can see that the Zero really wasn't much, if any, better than the supposedly clumsy Wildcats that it flew against. Vastly _different_ from the Widcat, but not _better_. Hence it wins the _most_ over-rated prize.


Nice post. I get what you are saying. As to that other thread, I still can't see anyone voting for the C-47 as overrated. Some of those things are still earning a paycheck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 15, 2021)

Was not intending to contradict R Leonard in any specific way. His credentials and knowledge are not in question. He has his scorecard and I have mine.

My take is the Zero was a vastly superior dogfighter, particularly at under 280 mph, but if boom and zoom tactics were used, the F4F could and DID hold it's own. In the end, the Wildcat had a good kill-ratio. Of course, the Zero's kill ratio might be a surprise if we had the data to calculate it. Since we don't (or, more accurately, I don't), all I know for sure is that the Allies won the war, and the F4F Wildcat was all we had at the start. It didn't really shoot down many aircraft. The U.S. Navy and Marines shot down 10,581 enemy aircraft. Of these 1,327 were by Wildcats. That's 12.5% of the kills. The Hellcat got 48.8% of the kill and the Corsair got 20.2%. The rest were scattered over dive bombers, patrol bombers, torpedo bombers, etc. Of the three fighters (Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair), the Wildcat scored the least by some 800+ kills.

To add some numbers, I combine all Wildcats, F4F and FM. Total sorties were 15,553. Total losses to enemy AAA were 86. Losses to enemy aircraft were 191. Operational losses were 124. Total losses (AAA, A/C, Oper) add up to 401. Total air and ground kills were 1,327. The kills are not broken out by air and ground. So, we have a problem calculating kill-to-loss ratio for air-to-air because we don't have the air-to-air kills. OK, figure total kill ratio including air-to-air, AAA, and operational losses as 1,327 kill to 401 losses. That is a kill ratio of 3.3 : 1. 

The only Naval fighter with a worse overall kill-to-loss ratio is the F4U Corsair at 2.8 : 1. The Corsair was pretty good if you look at kills to air-to-air losses, but we don't really HAVE an air-to-air kill breakout. So, we are left with overall kills to losses and the Corsair had 349 losses to AAA and 230 losses on operational flights. AAA losses are not the fault of the aircraft. It's hard to dodge an AAA shell when you can't see it.

The Hellcat overall kill-to-loss ratio was 4.4 : 1 and that pretty much accounts for the U.S. Naval fighters.

You can't really compare Naval and Air Force fighters since they operated in wildly different scenarios. The Navy (and Marines) mostly fought over water with a few fighters against a few opponents. The Air Force mostly fought over land with sometimes as many as 100 - 600 - 800 fighters in the air against 20 - 200 opponents, most flying pretty high with the bomber streams. If they got down low, German AAA could and did take pot shots. They weren't bad shots, either. There was a LOT more opportunity for an enemy to sneak up on you and kill you over Europe than over the Pacific Ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Having said that, I think that R Leonard's remarks about cockpit visibility and shooting technique in a Zero are persuasive, and match with the schematic drawings that I have studied (a Wildcat nose has a definite downward slope forward of the canopy; a Zero's nose does not).


You're not going to make an accurate assessment based on "a schematic." The only way you're really going to get a perspective if you actually SIT in the real aircraft, and your opinions about what you're seeing (or feeling) may be based on your height and body size. I've had the opportunity to sit in several WW2 fighters (P-51, P-38, Bf-109, and a Hawker Fury. My perspective of what I thought the cockpit would be like was totally different from what I experienced, now mind you I was in street clothes and not sitting on a parachute, even then totally different from what I envisioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 15, 2021)

Yes but you know how to drive a plane. Modern that is if i am not mistaken. So how would you value the instrument lay out and ( hope it is a word) workability under stress? Modern vs WW2 war machines. Not in combat, but i am sure you can think up a scenario difficult just flying. Are the dials for a modern pilot in the right place..that kind of stuff.
So if you have a few minutes i would like to hear your opinion please.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Yes but you know how to drive a plane. Modern that is if i am not mistaken. So how would you value the instrument lay out and ( hope it is a word) workability under stress? Modern vs WW2 war machines. Not in combat, but i am sure you can think up a scenario difficult just flying. Are the dials for a modern pilot in the right place..that kind of stuff.
> So if you have a few minutes i would like to hear your opinion please.


Actually compared to what I have flown, both general aviation and jet aircraft, I find the WW2 fighters I've sat in very simplistic. Once you learn to fly you'll easily recognize basic instruments for both flight and monitoring engine performance. For the most part most instruments and controls are similarly placed. After that it's a matter of training.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 15, 2021)

Random thoughts

Zero pilots almost never wore parachutes

Radios also matter because you can be warned of an approaching plane by another distant plane

the USN did have the best deflection shooting, e.g. all shots not directly from behind, because they trained on it pre war and emphasized it more than others. IJN didn’t do this much as they were expecting to get the much easier shot from directly behind the target

the zeros poor medium speed maneuvering and horrible high speed were a major factor. Also it’s near inability to roll and turn right at medium+ speed was a major weakness. Lack of a pressurized carberator Was a massive weakness. 

Zeros were also structurally weak allowing wing break Which the wildcats never suffered from. They also had extremely poor dive ability. 

Zeros massive range, very low speed maneuverability, and climb rate were the only things it was clearly better at

wildcat survivability was a massive advantage 

Wildcat had better supercharger system so if provided with enough early warning could get above zeros to start the fight. During guadcanal the coast watchers provided this. Radar helped a lot too, especially as the war went on.

Zeros cannon had low velocity and thus were bad at medium range and much worse at deflection shooting due to bullet drop. The high nose did impact the zeros deflection shots. 50 cal was much better in this regard and retained energy at greater distance. Wildcats often survived multiple hits from the zero cannon while the zero nearly never did the 50 cal.

the wildcats supposed lack of rear visibility is greatly overstated as the canopy was wide enough and the seat high enough to rotate your head and lean out and see more than it looks like to the rear. Zero was still better though. side note the F-15 has better rear visibility then the F-16 becuase the F-16 canopy is narrow and the helmet hits the window not allowing a full rearward look even though it’s canopy seems to have great rear view.

IJN never focused on recovering downed pilots like the US did. This allowed surviving pilots to fight Again, at guadcanal this let shot down pilots to fight agsint often on the same day. US pilots were also sent home to train new aviators something the IJN didn’t do.

IMO Japan was bad at war, they got lucky early but barely evolved their tactics. Infighting, logistics, and rigidity of dcotrine all helped cause their downfall

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Zeros were also structurally weak allowing wing break Which the wildcats never suffered from.


The Zero wing was one continual structure - I believe other components will fail before a wing would tear off. This has been discussed several times on this form. I have never seen combat reports of this continually happening and IMO if it did happen it was probably due to previous battle damage.









Design Analysis of the Zeke 32 (Hamp - Mitsubishi A6M3)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 15, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> I doubt very much that a Spitfire, a La-5 or a P-51 (to name a few) had a marked advantage over the zero in this respect.


The Spitfire 190 109 and P51 could both disengage and re-engage from a fight with an A6M when they chose too, all four had the speed to run from an A6M and likewise run an A6M down, all four were protected from the A6M's guns bar the latter's 20mm's AP ammunition yet it was venerable from every type of the formers guns, even the generic .303 30/06 8x57 ball ammunition. The A6M had very long range which seems to be it's selling point, the allies could have stripped any number of their planes down to the A6M's spec, I used a PR Spit as an example and could have also had its range and low speed agility but all that would have resulted in is more Marianas Turkey shoot's, the Luftwaffe's found that out when they stripped their 109's to make them competitive with the Mustang late in the war.


----------



## MCamp (Nov 15, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Zero wing was one continual structure - I believe other components will fail before a wing would tear off. This has been discussed several times on this form. I have never seen combat reports of this continually happening and IMO if it did happen it was probably due to previous battle damage.
> 
> View attachment 648377
> 
> ...


I stand corrected

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 15, 2021)

The KI-43 (the "other" zero) is the one with structural issues with their wings. That problem was corrected in later variants.

And Japan did use it's aces as instructors. When the 251st (former Tainan Air Group) was recalled to Japan from Rabaul in '42, they were assigned to a flight school for about six months.
While this doesn't seem very long, it was still an opportunity for them to share their knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> *The KI-43 (the "other" zero) is the one with structural issues with their wings. *


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 15, 2021)

Lots of chatter touching on various subjects . . . a small contribution which I shall have to break into, oh, three pieces due to the 20,000 character limit . . .

Part the first

I am sometimes amazed at the survival of the 1950's era hoary tales of the vaunted China experience garnered by the IJN manages to permeate discussions unto today.

Most of this thought seems to have spread forth from the pop histories of the period and, like the internet, the repetition seems to make it true. However, studies conducted in the aftermath of the war clearly pose a different picture. 

In December 1941, the Japanese Navy had some 3500 "front line" pilots (this comparing to some 2500 IJAAF available pilots) of whom about one half were carrier current, that is, assignable to carrier squadrons. The USSBS reports that of the 3500 or so IJN pilots, 600, with about 800 hours each on the average, were assigned to carrier groups. (See USSBS Report No. 62, Japanese Air Power, Pacific War, Military Studies, Military Analysis Division, July 1946, Appendix II, Japanese Air Personnel.) This proportion pretty much correlates with those of the USN/USMC. Just looking at active 1941 USN squadrons yields a similar number of available-right-now aviators. USN carrier squadrons, at the end of 1941 mustered about 580 flying slots in 38 squadrons. Land-based USMC VMF and VMSB squadrons probably accounted for another 200-250 readily available carrier qualified pilots. Certainly this was not the total pool of available carrier qualified USN/USMC pilots as it does not take into account carrier qualified pilots assigned to such mundane activities as training and staff positions, as well as land based squadrons. The same would be true of the IJN, there were undoubtedly many carrier qualified pilots not actually assigned to a carrier squadron and so operating. Around the start of the war a quick, dirty count comes up with about 4800 rated aviators in the USN (haven't gotten around to counting Marines), this includes USN and USNR officers as well as enlisted NAPs.

Additionally, it was a pre-war USN practice to move pilots from "community" to "community". Famed fighter pilot Jimmy Thach, for example, spent two or three tours in patrol planes, five to six years, if not more. All USN pilots, up until the rapid expansion of 1941, were carrier qualified at some point regardless of the community to which they were eventually assigned. One should remember that for the pre-war IJN, though, one was either a land based pilot or one was a carrier qualified pilot. Of course a carrier pilot could operate from shore stations, but the typical land-based IJN pilot was not carrier qualified. 

In preparing for the war, the IJN brought its operational aircraft up to a level of about 1800 aircraft, with about 1200 of them shore based and 600 ship based (aircraft carriers and battleship and cruiser scouts). If there were, indeed, at least about 1500 carrier qualified IJN pilots, then, obviously they had twice as many pilots as carrier pilot slots. 

As near as I can put together from various sources perused over the years, during the course of the war the IJN trained some 24,000 pilots of all stripes. Roughly 18,900 of them, and their pre-war compatriots, were killed, either in action, training, or operationally. Over 2500 of these were killed in suicide attacks. 

Quoting from the USSBS report No. 62: 

_"4. Expansion in 1942 
"The Japanese Army had a prearranged plan for expanding the pilot training program to meet wartime needs. That plan was put into effect in December 1941 and became operative in early 1942. Under it, 18 new training units were formed for the purpose of providing about a year's flying training for reserve personnel, both officers and enlisted men. The program for regular officers and enlisted men remained about what it had been before the war.

"At the beginning of the war, the Japanese Navy was producing pilots at the rate of 2,000 a year as compared with the Army's 750, and accordingly it made no large changes in the structure or size of its training organization. Two new training air groups were, however, put into operation late in 1942 and early in 1943 respectively. 
_
_"The 1942 expansion gave the Japanese Army a training organization which produced more than 2,700 pilots in both 1942 and 1943. Meanwhile, the Navy training organization was operating at a slightly increased tempo, and it produced 2,300 pilots in 1942 and 2,700 in 1943.

"5. Expansion in 1943 and 1944 
"During 1942 and 1943, the Japanese Army and Navy together lost about 10,000 pilots, mainly in the Solomons, Bismarcks, and New Guinea. Moreover, the air potential of the Allies had finally become apparent to the high command and a substantial expansion of the size of both air arms was decided upon. As a part of this program and also to replace their heavy losses, both Army and Navy made plans to expand their training programs more than three times their existing size. 

"The Japanese Army plan for expansion called for several changes in the training organization. The units which had been formed in 1942 to train reserves were equipped to give only intermediate or basic training instead of all phases of training, and their number was increased from 18 to 48. New units were formed to give primary training. Perhaps the most important development was the formation of operational training units to provide training in combat aircraft. Those units were supposed to relieve tactical units of the responsibility for providing newly assigned pilots with such training, although actually they never functioned with any degree of efficiency. 

"The Japanese Navy increased the number of its training air groups from 15 to 48, but it did not materially alter the structure of its training organization. These groups operated from 65 bases, 2 in the Philippines, 5 in Formosa, 5 in the Singapore area, and the remainder in Japan. The Army moved a much higher percentage of its training organization to the Philippines and the southern area with the intention of profiting by the proximity of aviation fuel, but the result was to expose training bases to Allied air attacks and ultimately to isolation from Japan. 

"The expanded training programs were designed to produce a total of over 30,000 pilots a year. Actually, that rate was never attained, but a somewhat lower rate was reached by about September of 1944 and maintained past the end of that year. The fuel shortage, which began late in 1944, and the Allied attacks on training bases were the principal causes of the failure of the training program to achieve the scheduled output. 
_
_"After the expanded training programs began to operate, the quality of Japanese pilots continued to fall off considerably. The basic reason for the decline was the reduction in flying training hours, especially in tactical units. That reduction in turn was caused by shortages in aircraft, in fuel (after September 1944), in instructors and by Allied air attacks on training installations. In addition, the quality of the pilots declined because of a considerable lowering in the physical standards for recruits and the absence of any program for rotating and rehabilitating pilots. These factors all reflected a decision by the high command that a large number of pilots was necessary even if quality had to be sacrificed to produce them. In consequence, the Japanese Air Force always had enough pilots to man the increasing number of planes then being produced, but by June 1945 the average flying time of both Army and Navy pilots was about 100 hours when committed to combat.

"6. Suicide Training _
_"After the Philippines campaign, it became plain that Japanese pilots could not compete with Allied pilots, and the high command was forced into a decision to place its main reliance upon suicide attacks, which even unskilled pilots could perform. In the winter and spring of 1945 all orthodox training came temporarily to a standstill, and although it was later resumed, particularly in respect of regular Army officers, most training units concentrated on the development of suicide pilots alone. The Army decided that a minimum of 70 flying hours should be given a suicide pilot. The Navy thought from 30 to 50 hours sufficient if the attack were made in a training plane. In any event, in the spring and summer of 1945, an attempt was made to turn out pilots of these experience levels and to give them some training in dive bombing, the orthodox tactic most resembling the suicide attack." _(see above citation.)

If you look at USN pilot training, in the years 1925 through 1941 (very few aviators from classes prior to 1925 were still in flying billets by 1941) 7,061 pilots had completed the program. Of these, 44 percent, 3,112 completed the program just in 1941. Those most likely to endure most of the early fighting were those who completed flight training between 1934 and 1941, some 5,687 pilots (including Marines) – significantly already outnumbering the IJN pool. How many of these were carrier qualified? Most of them were at some point or other. Certainly not all were current, but most of them had at least qualified at some point. 

In 1942 USN pilot training programs started to ramp up; 10,869 aviators received their wings of gold, almost twice as many as had completed the program in the previous 8 years. In 1943 there were 20,842 graduates; 1944, 21,067; and, with then end of the war in sight, 1945 ended with 8,880 graduates. Thus, in the period 1942 to 1945, the USN produced more than 2.5 times the number of pilots as the IJN. While the USN training program quickly eschewed the concept of "everyone gets carrier qualified," each of those USN pilots went through a program of primary, intermediate, advanced training. For those destined to be carrier pilots, there was assignment to a VF, VB, or VT operational training unit, carrier qualifications, and then combat preparation in RAGs before heading west. New pilots were arriving for action in USN carrier squadrons with as many as 600 hours flying under their belts and as much as 200 hours of that in type.

This was a level of training and preparation to which the IJN could never dream of competing. As the war progressed the IJN training programs suffered from an insufficient number of qualified instructors, lack of fuel for extensive flying time, poor maintenance of training aircraft, and shortages of ordnance. The two most critically lacking areas were, first, a too long, into 1943, adherence to traditional adversarial nature of their programs (for every graduate, there were nine others who did not) and, secondly, of course, time. There was never enough time to develop the students' skills, to practice attack tactics or defensive actions. Most of them arrived in combat squadrons with less than 200 hours in all, by the very end of the war, less than 100 hours. Most had to learn combat skills on the job once assigned to a combat squadron. By then, it is too late and few survived.

This training program was the ultimate, final devastating factor for IJN aviation, both in carrier and land based programs, doomed by their inability to make good their losses. While some like to believe that the cream of the IJN carrier aviators were wiped out at Midway, that is not exactly true. The loss of the four carriers in this battle meant that, no matter what, all of their aircraft were lost; probably about 256 planes were lost. This does not equate to the loss of 256 pilots; rather, the Japanese only lost somewhat less than 100 pilots and aircrewmen in the battle, most of whom met their ends aboard sinking carriers as opposed to air combat operations. Where the curve of the loss of experienced pilots started to drop off the chart was in the Solomons where both land-based pilots and, thrown in as reinforcements, carrier pilot losses, went beyond the ability of the IJN's training programs to replace them with a quality product. The short hiatus from the Solomons campaigns to the Mariana's campaign allowed the IJN some training and preparation respite, but it really was never enough to build air groups of the pre-war caliber. A substantial majority of these newly trained pilots, the second generation of Japanese pilots, if you will, along with many of the residual experienced leaders, were lost in the Battle of the Philippines Sea, or as it is known, "The Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot." Somewhere around 270 IJN planes and their crews were shot down, with no hope of rescue (see comments on SAR, below) for any who might have been able to survive their downing. Essentially, this action eliminated what was a second generation of IJN carrier pilots and was a blow from which the IJN never recovered.

Others would harp on a supposed overall superiority of the start of the war in the ranks of IJN carrier pilots. At the risk of being trashed for writing heresy, I would suggest that this, too, is somewhat of an over simplified if not distorted view. Popularly – and ironically this view is mostly espoused post war in US writings - the pre December 1941 IJN pilots are given credit for racking up all this great combat experience in China. Well, so what about this great combat experience? This was exciting work, bombing raids blasting relatively, certainly by later wartime standards, undefended villages, towns, cities and then odd USN or RN river gunboat. Fighter plane wise, this meant flying strike escort for these mostly unchallenged air raids; shooting up an occasional column of troops or refugees; and, on very rare occasions, cornering a bunch of Russian built and Chinese flown I-15 biplanes or a rare I-16 monoplane.

Also, consider that, as time went on, IJN air units had considerably less involvement in China than IJA air units. Also consider, then, that in virtually all, if not actually all, USN/USMC versus Japanese fighter encounters, in the 12/7/41 to 12/31/42 time period, were against IJN fighter planes and pilots; there were no encounters with the planes and flyers of the JAAF. This is not to say the IJN China exposed flyers had no combat experience, but to pose instead that it was, perhaps, a "lower quality combat experience" than that for which they are popularly given - not much more than overly realistic training. The entire argument of the IJN pilots having all this vast combat experience must rest on some fairly unlikely presuppositions, which anyone with a practical knowledge of military organizations and the vagaries of individual comings and goings would very aware, to wit, popularly but unlikely:

That all IJN pilots/air groups went off to China and obtained this combat experience; that all sorties resulted in air to air combat action; that all the IJN fighter pilots obtained air-to-air combat experience; and that all IJN fighter pilots' air-to-air combat experience was obtained flying the A6M2. 

Further, for the popular argument to hold up, then all IJN pilots/air groups went off to fight the Americans with no pilot without this vast experience; that there were no transfers out of IJN air units; that there were no operational casualties; that there were no assignments of new pilots fresh from whatever advanced training; and that there were no transfers in from pilots who were busy elsewhere, like maybe training new pilots, during the China adventure. For all of these conditions to be met is extremely unlikely.

The reality was that there must have been new inexperienced IJN fighter pilots, there must have been some experienced pilots siphoned off to other duties, there must have been some injured or killed in routine flying accidents (remember carrier flying is more than just a little dangerous, easily a third or more of carrier planes lost were due to accidents or other mischance, without a shot being fired), there must have been some who chaffed at not flying in China, but then found themselves at the pointy end of the stick against the Americans.

USSBS comments specifically on the China experience level: 
"_Approximately 50 percent of Japanese Army pilots had had actual combat experience in China or in the border fighting against the Soviet Union which took place in 1939. About 10 percent of land based Navy pilots also had seen action in China. The experience in China was not particularly valuable in view of the lack of serious opposition provided by the Chinese Air Force, although bomber crews and ground support units received some training against live targets. In conflict with the Soviets, however, the Japanese Army Air Force met serious opposition and suffered heavy losses. Japanese Army Air Force officers now attribute a considerable part of the skill of Army pilots during the first days of the war to the lessons learned while fighting the Soviets_." (see above citation.)

Significantly, whatever combat experience the IJN pilots did acquire in China would only stand them good stead if the USN pilots flew like the Chinese Air Force . . . which was, most definitely, not the case.

At the beginning of the war, depending on one's status a pilot, navigator, or observer trainee in pipeline of the IJN flight training program could expect to spend anywhere from 17 months up to as many as 42 months in training. Regular officers could expect the shortest training, 2 months in pre-flight (dropped in 1942), 6 months in Primary and Basic, 6 months in operational training and at least 3 months in tactical flight training. Reserve Officer Candidates (college grads less than 28 years old) could expect 4 months in preflight, 6 months in Primary and Basic, 6 months in operational and at least 3 months in tactical flight. Flying Technical Enlisted Trainees (serving personnel from surface forces) spent 6 months in preflight and similar tours lengths as the officers in the other categories. The longest training was endured by the Flying Branch Reserve Enlisted Trainees; these came from civilian life, had to be at least 14 years old and have at least 8 years of schooling. Their preflight training could be anywhere from a year to two years depending on age and school. Once their preflight was competed, the remainder of their training was as for the other categories above. There were no flying hours in preflight training. The syllabus called for a minimum 60 hours in trainers for regular and reserve officers during primary and basic flight training, 100 hours in combat types during operational training and 150 hours in assigned combat type during tactical training. Enlisted trainees (both types) were expected to acquire 44, 60, and 150 hours in the same categories.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 15, 2021)

Part the Second

I'll let LTC John C Marchant, USAAC, present the description of JAAF training at the start of the war, this from his article in Military Review, "The Development of Japanese Army Air Force Pilot Training" (Vol 25, #8, November 1945). This information correlates well with the postwar USSBS Report 62. See: 
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p124201coll1/id/958/filename/959.pdf starting on page 52.

_ "In 1941, pilot training in the Japanese Army Air Force covered the four phases shown in the diagram, above (Figure 3). [ed. Which I have omitted from this tour-de-force]

"The following outline of the scope of this training indicates that the Japanese methods were quite comprehensive:

"PRE-FLIGHT. - 
"1. Air Training Units (Koku Kyoiku Tai) consisted of civilians and volunteers who were permitted to transfer from other branches of the Army except military police. The training period for civilians lasted two years, and included basic military training and spiritual and psychological indoctrination. Military personnel transferring from ground units received eight months of training. No flying was taught. At the graduation they were classified as potential pilots, radio operators, etc., and entered the Air Service as superior privates.

"ELEMENTARY.-
"1. Elementary Air Schools (Hiko Gakko) received students from Air Training Units for primary and basic training. Primary training covered a period of six months, during which the student received twenty hours dual and seventy hours solo instruction. Aptitude tests were then given and the students designated as fighter, bomber, or reconnaissance pilots. Washouts, which averaged about seventy percent, had their choice of becoming radio operators, gunners, bombardiers, or navigators. For the successful students a basic training period of three months followed in which they received an additional thirty hours in advanced trainers. On graduation, pilots received a pilot's certificate equal to a peacetime pilot's license requiring a years' training.

"2. Air Academy (Koku Shikau Gakko). The Air Academy received officers and potential officers between the ages of sixteen and twenty-eight for the purpose of commissioning personnel for the Air Force. The academy consisted of twp sections:
a. Students: second lieutenants from other branches of the army who received one year of flight training. 
b. Cadets: graduates of the Air Preparatory Schools who trained for thirty-two months and received commissions in the Air Force upon graduation.
The course at the Air Academy included flight training similar to that received at Elementary Air Schools.

" ADVANCED. - 
"1. Advanced Air Schools (Hiko Gakko) Students proceeded to these specialized schools, located in Japan, from the Air Academy and the Elementary Air Schools. The peacetime course was for six months (shortened to four months during the war), during which fighter and reconnaissance pilots logged an additional 150 hours and bomber pilots about 200 hours in operational types of aircraft.
2. Flying Training Regiments (Kyoiku Hikonentai) were located overseas and provided advanced training in operational types of aircraft to graduates of the Air Academy and Elementary Air Schools. They served the same purpose as the Advanced Air Schools, fighter and reconnaissance pilots receiving 150 hours and bomber pilots 200 hours training in operational types of aircraft.

"OPERATIONAL. - 
"Before being sent on an operation the pilot received from two to six months' further training within the unit to which he was assigned in a combat or overseas area. Here crews started training as a unit, pilots were instructed in local combat tactics, and the pilot was oriented on his area of operation."_

So, what about all this superior Japanese training? Certainly, the Japanese Navy ran the most adversarial of training programs, and not just for pilots. Having had some small experience in participating, as both a trainee and a trainer, and in running training programs of a military nature, I agree that one must be firm on adhering to the training standard, i.e., a demonstration by the student that he can accomplish the task being trained. I am also absolutely, totally, certain that beating the daylights out of one's trainees is not conducive to optimal results. 

So, the popular theory is that these green, inexperienced, fresh from training, USN/USMC pilots faced all these, to a man, combat experienced, multiple victory, mature late 20's to early 30's, rock steady, hardened professionals of the IJN. Not really true, statistically unlikely and largely stemming from 1950's mythology.

USN/USMC pilots of the period, while not combat experienced, were, in most cases, well trained, well led, and possessed of sound tactical doctrine (and, yes, I can point to units that perhaps did not meet that description, but they were a glaring and distinct minority). Squadron commanders and executive officers, for the most part, were experienced aviators who had received their wings by the early 1930's, the division and section leaders usually had anywhere from three years to slightly less than a year in type. What do you suppose the prewar USN/USMC pilots were doing while the 10% of IJN pilots were cavorting around in the air over China ... sitting around on their hands at the Kaneohe, Ford Island, or Norfolk NAS Officers' Clubs? No, they were flying and training, flying and training, flying and training, ad nauseum. They had a good idea who they were going to have to fight, and some, Lt Cdr's James Flatley and John Thach being the prime examples, had a pretty good idea how they were going to go about it.

An example of the USN squadrons would be the aviators from one fighter squadron, VF-42, who fought against the Shoho, Zuikaku, Shokaku, Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu, and Kaga air groups, as well as aircraft stationed at Tulagi. VF-42 had spent some 8 months on Neutrality Patrols in the Atlantic, flying F4F's (and before that in its previous identity of VS-41, SBUs) off Ranger, Wasp, and Yorktown before the attack on Pearl Harbor. In June of 1941, the squadron was attached to the Yorktown and, with the coming of the war, went to the Pacific aboard her. The experience level for the squadron, reported on 30 April 1942, ranged from a high of 3019.3 hours (Flatley, the XO) down to 274.4 hours (Ens Harry Gibbs, who joined the squadron on 8 December 1941, straight from ACTGLant just a week before the ship left Norfolk, VA for points west). The average pilot hours for the squadron were 989.4. A quick calculation shows us that 3.8 hours flying a day, 5 days a week, for a year would net you 988 hours flight time. In actuality, once assigned to a carrier squadron one could expect a pilot to acquire not more than about 10 hours a week if he really worked at it, or about 500 hours a year. Looking at reports of high tempo operations at the end of the war reveal the even in 1945, USN carrier pilots were still only averaging 10 hours a week in operational flying, this during the final July-August strikes. The squadron average, therefore, represents almost two years' worth of flying experience. All division and section leaders in the squadron had at least 600 hours recorded in their log books. One might want to compare the squadron average hours with the average IJN carrier pilot average quoted by USSBS and, usually, dredged up in discussions such as this . . . 800 hours.

The squadron suffered no combat casualties in the early raids, in fact, none until the Battle of the Coral Sea, where they lost two planes and one pilot in air-to-air combat. Another one plane and its pilot were lost operationally during the battle. The squadron was credited with 24 victories between 4 May 42 and 8 May 42. A month later, at Midway, where VF-42 pilots made up 64% (16 of 25) of Jimmy Thach's VF-3 pilots engaged on June 4th (and 59% of VF-3, overall), they lost 4 planes shot down and 2 pilots. Of claims credited to pilots flying with VF-3 at Midway, 17 of 27 went to the VF-42 contingent. Of a total of 21 pilots assigned to this squadron from 7 December, 1941 to the end of June 1942 when it was disestablished, only 6 planes and 3 pilots were lost in combat. This squadron was one of only two that flew at both at Coral Sea and at Midway (the other squadron being the Yorktown's VB-5, which was temporarily re-designated "VS-5" during the Midway period) and was the only US fighter squadron whose pilots fought at both battles. In an article in the _Bureau of Naval Personnel Bulletin_ #318, August 1943, the VF-42 squadron commander, Lt. Comdr. Charles Fenton, remarked:

"_This squadron was one of the finest of its day, was well trained under peacetime standards and the general flying experience of the pilots was wide. The squadron has an enviable record of victories at the time of its decommissioning in June 1942."_

As an aside, in the same article, Fenton then went on to comment on his next assignment, that of commander of the newly established VF-11. (This, by squadron number count – VF-8 being the last of the prewar established squadrons – was the third new fighter squadron established since the start of the war. Fenton's comments are flavored of their times and may seem a little "rah-rah" to today's reader, but for the 1943 timeframe are fairly typical):

_"Last fall, I was ordered to report as commanding officer of a new squadron, then forming at San Diego. With the exception of one officer from my old squadron, I had practically no one except new officers who had just completed training. It looked like it was going to be a terrific undertaking to train these apparently green fellows so that they would be ready for combat in a short time.
"They've been in the Pacific all this spring and you can judge how good they must be by the number of Japs being shot down these days. The Jap pilots are good, but they are far inferior to the pilots we are putting into combat. The success of our boys is due to their typical American courage backed up by the well rounded and complete training they receive."_

Where the real difference lay, as I am always so quick to point out, was in tactics . . . and this is where the discussion wraps back around to training . . . without training and practice in tactics you are just boring holes in the sky until someone shoots you down. For example, while the USN/USMC fighter pilots specialized in deflection gunnery, the IJN pilots, while having some training in deflection gunnery, (do not for one second believe the Japanese knew nothing of deflection gunnery, they most certainly did) tended to prefer the high side rear or frontal attack. If their target turned away at the last instance before firing, as the USN pilots were trained to react, the attack was spoiled. It has been said that true deflection gunnery tactics ended forever the concept of the "dogfight" as it had been practiced since WWI and, to their detriment, preferred by the Japanese pilot ethos. If you do not train for and practice the art of deflection gunnery and you find yourself up against someone who does, you're already behind the curve and in deep trouble. When you add Thach's beam defense to deflection gunnery, you are close to a world-beater. Escorting the Yorktown's VT-3 on its strike on the Japanese carriers at Midway, Jimmy Thach led a 4-plane VF-3 division as cover. After losing one plane in the initial contact with the Japanese CAP, he initiated the beam defense tactic for the very first time with the remaining three planes of his division. They shot down at least four, and probably five, A6M2's with no further losses to themselves. In the process, they soaked up the attentions of some 12 of the Japanese CAP (almost a third of the airborne CAP) while the SBDs were gathering overhead. The Japanese reported that they had encountered some 18 Grumman fighters in this same action.

By late 1942 virtually all the USN/USMC fighter squadrons operated in two plane sections and four plane divisions, though some required some convincing to move away from the more traditional 3 and 6 formation . . . usually a practical demonstration was sufficient. Sections could be internally supportive one with one and externally supportive in divisions, two with two. The Japanese, on the other hand were saddled with the three-plane section, nine-plane division, a practice that looks nice in air shows and was more suitable for WWI type tactics. The 3-9 set up evolved during WWI as it provides a better lookout doctrine in the biplane world. The 2-4 set up takes advantage of the monoplane construction with no overhead and forward wing to block the view. While one might think that the greater numbers would work to the Japanese advantage, in practice it was hard to maintain section cohesiveness. Oft times the third man in a section turned out to be the odd man out and it was he who was sure to get burned in an approach on weaving F4Fs. The USN/USMC fighter pilots were already experimenting with, and some squadrons had firmly established, the 2-4 formations before they ever got into the war. VF-42 for example transitioned to F4Fs in March 1941 and by May they were using 2-plane sections and 4-plane divisions, exclusively, and never looked back. The Japanese maintained their 3-9 formations into 1944. 

Bottom line is that the Japanese could not match the numbers of pilots trained and could not make good their own losses. In spite of whatever experience level they had acquired in China (and that argument is not very convincing) that experience did not prepare them for combat against the USN. While they did not do badly at first (and one must remember that the majority of the astounding success accorded to the A6M2 and its drivers, if you bother to look into it, was not against fighters; it was against, for lack of a better term, non-fighters and in shooting up parked aircraft) their inability to absorb losses and, importantly, combat lessons pretty much led them down a path to futility. I've always suspected that the inability of the Japanese to rapidly absorb combat lessons, beyond cultural reasons, was that those who could recognize what they were seeing and do something about in the long run were getting killed off before they could do so. And, certainly, a long road back for the USN, but one, especially as the Solomons campaign was drawing to a close, where a final victory lay as a prize at the end.

And, what of USN training? By mid-1942 with a massive construction effort to expand facilities, the wartime training process was fairly well established. The large difference between the wartime training process and the prewar was the advent of the operational training units. Prewar, a newly designated aviator, if headed for carriers, went to one of two advanced carrier training groups (ACTG), one based in Norfolk and the other in San Diego. For the patrol plane types there were the transitional training squadrons (TTS) one each at the same locations. The ACTGs slowly morphed into unit training programs under the Fleet Air commands rather than individual programs, the TTS eventually went away in late 1943.

Officers of the regular Navy, after two years of sea duty, could apply for aviation training. Enlisted men of the regular Navy who, in the opinion of their commanding officers had the potential to qualify, could request aviation training and, upon completion, would be designated as Naval Aviation Pilots - by the middle of the war, such enlisted personnel were sometimes rolled into the Aviation Cadet (AvCad) program and commissioned as Ensigns, USNR or USCGR or 2d Lieutenants, USMCR, upon completion of intermediate flight training. 

Civilians were enrolled through the V-5 program as AvCads and commissioned in Reserves upon completion of flight training. These civilians were the source of the vast majority of the USN and USMC aviators. The Navy's pilot training program, as it evolved, was designed to bring in up to 2500 pilot candidates a month, certainly far more than could be drawn from the regular naval establishment. Between 1940 and 45 a total of 65,478 individuals were designated as Naval Aviators or NAPs (enlisted aviators). On 1 Jul 41 there were 4,617 naval aviators on active duty (3,936 officers & 681 NAPs); on 1 Jul 45 there were 60,095 naval aviators on active duty (59,609 officers & 486 NAPs).

The V-5 program provided for qualified civilians to enlist in the Navy for the purpose of attending flight training. The training of AvCads, as developed in the first year of the war, provided for selected applicants to attend a flight preparatory course for three months at one of 20 colleges across the country. This was an academic program preliminary to actual flight training. Upon completion, another two months was spent learning to fly light aircraft at one of 250 training centers operated by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Upon completion of this basic course, the AvCad then attended a pre-flight training course that largely consisted of physical and military training lasting about 3 months. This was followed by 2 months at a Naval Air Station or a Naval Air Reserve Base in Primary Flight Training. Collectively these preliminary training steps were referred to as elimination training. Prior to the war, should a student be eliminated he had the choice of continued enlisted service or separation, once the war started, if eliminated one was sent to other enlisted assignments. The Primary Flight Training portion was divided into six stages:

1. Primary Dual: in company with an instructor - basics of taxiing, take-offs, climbs, turns, spirals, glides, landings, stalls, spins and primary emergency procedures. Upon completion of this first stage, the AvCad performed a solo check flight.
2. Primary Solo: following a general review dual instruction, advanced tasks and techniques. With both dual and solo demonstration, covered in this phase were steeply banked turns, high altitude slips and spirals, spins, wingovers and reactive emergencies. Instruction included small field landings and slips to a landing, both dual and solo.
3. Advanced solo: both dual instruction and solo demonstration - loops, split-S, snap roll, pylons, precision landings with slips, spin recovery and field procedures.
4. Final: both dual and solo demonstration - General review stressing smoothness, reaction to strange field procedures with power, instruction in inverted stalls and spins and progressive spins.
5. Formation: Instruction and practice in formation flying techniques.
6. Night flying: Dual and solo night flying instruction.

At each of these 6 stages the AvCad had to receive a satisfactory check off before proceeding to the next stage. While all this was going on, there was also a ground training school which occupied about half of the AvCad's time, including study of power plants, photography, gunnery, aerology, aircraft structures, navigation and communications.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 15, 2021)

Part the Third

Upon successful completion of his primary training, the AvCad moved on to Intermediate Flight Training. This training was usually conducted at naval air training centers such as NAS Corpus Christi or NAS Pensacola. In his intermediate training the AvCad flew service type aircraft (types in squadron service as opposed to simpler training aircraft). Students were given the opportunity to request the type of aircraft in which they wanted to specialize. These types generalized as carrier (CV), patrol (VPB), utility (VJ/VR) or scout/observation (VO/VCS). There was no guarantee that one would be assigned as requested.

Initial intermediate training consisted of a refresh of skills taught in Primary Training in order to indoctrinate the AvCad in the operation of heavier, more powerful aircraft. Instrument training was heavily emphasized with the use of Link trainers and "under-the-hood" flying. The instrument flying program began with basic familiarization with instruments and their part in trimming; straight, smooth flight; climbs, glides, spirals, stalls and spins; intricate patterns; recovery from unusual situations; and rough air procedures. This phase also covered radio ranging, beam navigation, and methods of orientation. The satisfactory check for this phase included demonstration of primary skills, instrument flight and navigation, and instrument guided landing.

The next phase of intermediate training was Specialized Intermediate Training based on the AvCad's by now expected community assignment and centered on specific operational types. For carrier based types: VF training was 100 hours and included familiarization, acrobatics, formation tactics, primary and advanced fixed gunnery, combat tactics, glide bombing, navigation, night flying and carrier operations. VB training was 100 hours including familiarization, gunnery, as well as carrier operations and with the greatest emphasis placed on glide and dive bombing, navigation, scouting, communications and formation tactics. VT training was similar to VSB with the elements of the torpedo attack being the emphasis vice dive bombing. Intermediate ground school subjects included engineering and maintenance, navigation, communications, aerology, survival, and organization and operations of squadrons.
At the completion of Intermediate Flight Training the Aviation Cadet was awarded his wings, was assigned a permanent Naval Aviator number and, except for a very small number of NAPs, was commissioned in the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard. By now, the new naval aviator has spent seven or so months in the training pipeline.

The next step in Naval Aviator training was assignment to an operational training unit of the Naval Air Operational Training Command, NAS Jacksonville (NAOTC). It was at the Operational Training Unit (OTU) level that air crews were established, with enlisted aircrewmen being assigned with pilots in VB and VT aircraft types. These personnel assignments generally continued through the OTU period and on into operational squadrons. Prior to the Apr 42 establishment of the NAOTC, advanced training was accomplished at the Advanced Carrier Training Groups located at NAS Norfolk and NAS San Diego. OTUs were where most of the newly designated aviators received their training associated with his type assignment. Between one third and one half of each intermediate training class, the new naval aviators, were selected for carrier training.

Focusing on training of carrier pilots, those of the VF, VB, and VT variety of the species, operational training exposed the new aviator to in-type training in an environment not dissimilar to an active squadron. OTUs were deliberately organized as nearly as possible along the lines of an operational squadron.

In carrier-type OTUs there were approximately 100 aviators, with a sufficient number of instructors and service type planes. Each OTU was commanded by a Training Officer with the rank of lieutenant or above. Among his training staff were a ground training officer, a flight officer, a navigation officer, and officers bearing titles and responsibilities similar to those typically assigned to aviators in squadrons operating from a carrier.

Operational training was eight weeks in length. The average CV type aviator would accumulate about 110 flight hours during this time. In the typical training day, aviators were scheduled for not more than 4 hours flying a day with the remainder of the day's activities involving ground training activities.

In general, CV type OTU training instructions included five major points: (1) The use of the type's primary weapon, (2) Tactics and formation Flying, (3) Navigation, (4) Carrier operations – landing and launching, and, (5) Instrument-flying.

As training progressed, increasing emphasis was given to the employment of the primary offensive weapons of the type (VF, VB, or VT) to which the aviator was specializing; VF Fixed Guns, VB Bombs (by diving), VT Torpedoes and glide and level bombing. The CV bound aviator, before assignment to a fleet carrier squadron, was required to demonstrate their mastery of taking off from and landing aboard a floating airfield. In preparation for that milestone, experienced landing signal officers trained the fledglings on airfield marked to resemble the flight deck of a carrier, using the same signals that are used in the fleet. Following this ground training the aviator students, usually as a unit, were normally sent to the Carrier Qualification Training Unit located at NAS, Glenview, Illinois. There, using the available training carriers, USS Wolverine and the USS Sable the prospective carrier pilot performed the required number of take offs and landing to be certified as carrier qualified. On some occasions, a regular line carrier might be available in the waters near the OTU base allowing carrier qualifications to be performed without traveling to NAS Glenview. Completion of OTU was followed by assignment to an active squadron or back into the training command as an instructor.

Continuing with carrier types, it should be kept in mind that as much as possible, the Navy and Marines preferred to keep personnel together in their organizations rather than the individual missions accounting often found amongst the USAAF.

A carrier air group would work up at one or more shore installations with a targeted ready date firmly fixed on the horizon. From initial establishment or reforming from a previous deployment an air group might spend six to eight months working up for its next deployment. Once the air group is ready for deployment, presuming the availability of a flight deck, it heads off to combat aboard a carrier. It would remain in the combat theater until its scheduled replacement air group was ready for deployment at which point it would be withdrawn for reforming ashore. Replacement pilots and crews joining over the course of a deployment might, or might not, go ashore with the rotation; most did although there are certainly cases, though generally so unusual as to be remarked upon in the literature, of individuals being transferred to the incoming air group or to another in-theater air group altogether.

Once back ashore following a deployment there was usually a period of leave with the squadrons in a caretaker status until reformed. During that period as many as 60% of a squadron's pilots and crews or more might be transferred to another squadron or activity. It was in these periods that one sees pilots moving back to the training commands as instructors or for additional training, or for the more senior, as commanders and execs of still new squadrons being formed.

The US practice of moving folks from combat zones to training or other activities is well described in the literature and can be illustrated. Take as examples, depending on one's orientation some well-known or, perhaps, less well-known, and their wartime assignments:

Louis L Bangs:
Aug to Sep 1940 - AvCad, NRAB Kansas City elimination training
Oct to Nov 1940 - AvCad, NRAB Kansas City solo flight training
Jan to Aug 41 - AvCad, NAS Pensacola
Aug 41 to Feb 42 - ENS, Instructor Primary Flight Training NAS Pensacola
Feb to Dec 42 - LTJG, Instructor, Primary Instructors School NAS Pensacola
Dec to Apr 42 - LT, Chief Flight Instructor - Instructors School NAS Pensacola
Apr 43 - LT, Student Instrument Refresher Course
May to Jul 43 - LT, VF Instructor NAS Pensacola
Aug 43 to Jul 44 - LT, VB-10 (FO) USS Enterprise
Aug 44 - Leave
Sep 44 to Jun 45 - LT & LCDR, VB-98 (XO) NAS Los Alamitos
Jun 45 to Sep 46 - LCDR, VB-80 (CO) USS Boxer
Louis Bangs retired as a Captain in the 1962.

Howard J Boydstun:
Oct 1940 to May 41 - Seaman, USS New York
Jun 41 to Sep 41 Midshipman, V-7 program Northwestern University
Sep 41 ENS - resigned commission to enter V-5 program
Sep 41 to Nov 41 - S1c, elimination training NAAS Opa Locka. Boydstun was able to skip some of the non-flying portions of elimination training based upon his prior service.
Dec 41 to Apr 42 - AvCad, NAS Pensacola
May 42 to Jun 42 - AvCad & ENS, VF Training NAS Miami
Jul 42 to Oct 42 - ENS, ACTG NAS San Diego
Nov 42 to May 43 - ENS, VF-10 USS Enterprise
Jun 43 Leave
Jul 43 to Dec 44 LTJG & LT, VF-8 NAF Pungo, USS Intrepid, USS Bunker Hill
Dec 44 Leave
Jan 45 to Feb 45 - LT, Student, Primary Flight Instructors School NAS New Orleans
Mar 45 to Aug 45 - LT, Primary Flight Instructor NAS Dallas
Howie Boydstun retired a Captain in 1972.

Richard Emerson Harmer
Dec 41 to Aug 42 - LTJG, VF-5 USS Wasp
Aug 42 to Oct 42 - LT, VF-5 (XO) USS Saratoga
Oct 42 to Mar 43 - LT, Project AFFIRM NAS Quonset Point
Mar 43 to Dec 43 - LT, VF(N)-75 (XO) NAS Quonset Point
Dec 43 to Feb 44 - LCDR, VF(N)-101 (CO) NAS Barbers Point
Feb 44 to Sep 44 - LCDR, VF(N)-101 (CO) USS Enterprise
Sep 44 to Sep 45 - LCDR, NAS Vero Beach (Chf TrngOff - VF(N))
Chick Harmer retired a Captain in 1961

Arthur Ray Hawkins
May 42 to Jan 43 - AvCad, Flt Trng NAS Dallas
Jan 43 to Apr 43 - ENS, Opnl Trng NAS Miami
Apr 43 to Apr 43 - ENS, Car Qual USS Charger
Apr 43 to Sep 43 - ENS, VF-31 NAS Atlantic City
Sep 43 to Dec 44 - ENS & LTJG, VF-31 USS Cabot
Dec 44 to Jul 45 - LTJG, VF-31 NAAS Hollister
Jul 45 to Sep 45 - LTJG, VF-31 USS Belleau Wood
Ray "Hawk" Hawkins retired a Captain in 1973.

Maxwell Franklin Leslie
May 1940 to Dec 41 - LT & LCDR, VB-3 (XO) NAS San Diego
Dec 41 to Feb 42 - LCDR, VB-3 (XO) USS Saratoga
Feb 42 to Apr 42 - LCDR, VB-3 (CO) NAS Kaneohe Bay
Apr 42 to Jun 42 - LCDR, VB-3 (CO) USS Enterprise
Jun 42 to Jun 42 - LCDR, VB-3 (CO) USS Yorktown
Jun 42 to Nov 42 - CDR, CEAG USS Enterprise
Nov 42 to Jan 43 - CDR, NAS Jacksonville staff
Jan 43 to Mar 43 - CDR, NAS Daytona Beach (CO)
Mar 43 to Nov 43 - CDR, later CAPT, Naval Air Gunners School (CO) NAS Hollywood
Nov 43 to Apr 44 - CAPT, Student Army-Navy Staff College
Apr 44 to Jun 44 - CAPT, Instructor, Command & General Staff School
Jun 44 to Aug 44 - CAPT, ComAirForWestCarolines staff (OpnsO)
Aug 44 to Dec 44 - CAPT, 2 MAW staff (OpnsO) NOB Espiritu Santo
Dec 44 to Aug 45 - CAPT, ComPhibForPac (OIC Air Support Control)
Aug 45 to Sep 45 - CAPT, ComPhibForPac (CO Air Support Control 8)
Max Leslie was advanced to Rear Admiral upon his retirement in 1956.

I cannot think of, nor have I ever found mention, of any single US naval aviator in any of the operational communities who flew in action from the very beginning of the war to the very end. Certainly, there were those who were on active flying duty on 7 Dec 41 who were in operational squadrons at the end of the war and some of those squadrons were in combat. One that immediately comes to mind is Cleo Dobson. As a Lieutenant (jg) in Enterprise's VS-6, he was shot down over Pearl Harbor by Japanese fighters on 7 Dec. He went on to serve in combat in the early carrier raids of 1942 and by the time of the Battle of Midway he was serving as an LSO, still aboard Enterprise. From there he went to training duties at VTB-OTU-2 at NAS Jacksonville. He moved on to become exec of VF-86 and then, in Jan 45, when his VF-86 CO took over the newly formed VBF-86, Dobson became the VF-86's second skipper. As a Lieutenant Commander and CO of VF-86 he deployed aboard USS Wasp and by the end of the war was flying combat missions over the Japanese home islands.

Not all early war aviators were in flying billets at the end. When the Japanese finally threw in the towel, Captain John S Thach - as in "Thach Weave" - a new Lieutenant Commander running VF-3 in Dec 41, was by then a Captain, off the coast of Japan aboard USS Shangri-La, the operations officer for the 2nd Fast Carrier Task Force (TF-38), working for Vice Admiral John McCain. His assistants were a couple of lieutenant commanders with whom he had served early in the war, Noel A M Gayler - who had been in Thach's VF-3 at the start of the war before being sent over to VF-2 as XO just before Coral Sea in May 42 - and William N Leonard - who was the senior of Yorktown's resident VF-42 pilots assigned to VF-3 for the Battle of Midway deployment and filled the VF-3 XO slot during that deployment.

For those with an interest in USAAF training programs – I have very little such interest and so do not presume to comment on same – you may wish to take a look at this link. I am sure there would be something of interest. Numbered USAF Historical Studies

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 15, 2021)

And a little fluff on comparative search and rescue, IJN v USN

Another great failure on the part of the IJN was something as fundamental as search and rescue. In fact, due to their organization, doctrine and resources the Japanese were never in a position to implement an effective search and rescue.

Look, for example, at the Solomon's campaign. From the start, Japanese air operations were primarily staged out of Rabaul, striking southeast towards Guadalcanal. These operations were at the far reach of effective strike range offering but scant minutes of combat time before one's ability to return was seriously compromised. Presuming one survived a ditching, there were simply no assets available to affect a rescue and, more importantly even if there were, there were no combat assets available to cover such operations. For the US types in the same situation, in more than just a few cases, the opposite was true . . . absent the presence of Japanese strike air, the US controlled the air at all other times, especially as the preponderance of increasing US air assets began to exert more pressure on the Japanese. Patrol planes, American and Commonwealth, in ever increasing numbers, could often find themselves in serendipitously in company with patrolling fighters as they went about their search routines, or, just as often, fighters were specifically tasked to provide coverage. Coupled with the possibility of fetching up on a shore where one might find oneself spirited off to a ragged coast watcher with a radio, one's chances of being returned were considerably better than a Japanese pilot in the same situation . . . indeed, making it ashore for a Japanese pilot might just be a case of simply another way to die.

Midway, is another example; US patrol planes operating out of Midway were part of a two week plus effort to scour the seas in the vicinity of the action. Not just a few US pilots and air crew owe their lives to this effort, not to mention a boat load of Japanese survivors of Hiryu to whom a patrol plane directed a USN ship to rescue.

The same thing happened in the Marianas where USN patrol planes and searching ships were able to rescue numerous pilots and crew floating about in the ocean. It was not a case of just picking up the Americans; there were not a whole lot of Japanese to be found.

Air-sea rescue became a specialty with USN and USAAF patrol squadrons being specifically tasked to the effort – there were, by the end of the war, beyond the typical VP/VPB patrol plane squadrons, specifically designated air-sea rescue squadrons, VH in USN squadron designations – as well as submarines and individual scout planes from surface warships. A US pilot ditching in the course of combat operations had a better than 50% chance of rescue. The Japanese pilot in the same situation was pretty much a write off because his compatriots were not in a position to make the same effort. Certainly some Japanese benefitted for the proximity of Japanese vessels which might be near-by when he went in the water, but if no one saw him go in, his chances were pretty slim unless spotted by an Allied search and he found it in himself to be willing to be picked up – sometimes getting found resulted in suicide.

Plucking downed aviators from enemy held waters, under fire, was not all that unusual, even in the confines the waters surrounding the Japanese home islands. Planning and coordinating air-sea rescue operations early-on became a routine, but significant piece of operations plans for strikes, with specific patrol plane assets covering known areas and submarines stationed at known points for easy contact and rescue coordination.

Lastly, one might consider the basic equipment, the airplane. It was a readily observed phenomenon that Japanese planes, when solidly hit, had an oft remarked upon tendency to explode, fall apart, or simply catch fire in a spectacular manner. One might presume that disastrous and fatal results from such instances might limit the number of potential survivors of an encounter. Not to say that US aircraft did not suffer similar effects, but equally remarked upon was the ability of US planes to absorb more damage and thus be able to depart the area of combat and wing their way closer to US forces and the potential for rescue.

If one looks at the record of USN combat type planes, for example, known to be lost from air action against Japanese aircraft, Japanese anti-aircraft fire, or some other combat related operational loss, one can find a rough total, combining all types, of about 3,367. Since most, but most certainly not all, USN pilots were officers, we can get a rough idea of survivability by looking at USN pilot officer losses from the same effects. Those 3,367 aircraft when taking into account pilots, co-pilots, and such (remembering that some of the VP types routinely carried as many as three pilots) the least number of pilots involved comes to about 3,611. USN pilot deaths from enemy action including operational losses in combat operations came to about 1,602, less than half the number of pilots involved in the aircraft losses. How many of the balance of some 2,000 were plucked from the water, I could not begin to guess, but I would not be at all surprised if a rather large, majority percentage of them, went for a swim.

Further, if one wants to restrict the research to the use of flying boats for SAR purposes, a significant piece of the puzzle would be production versus losses, that is how many of the service types of flying boat type aircraft (US = PBY, PB2Y & PBM series; IJN = H6K, H8K & H9K series were produced, say, from January 1940 to the end of the war, versus how many were lost in operations. (We might want to remember that the H9K series was primarily for training purposes, but since a not inconsiderable number of the USN types were used for training, the H9K is included.)

Total US production
PBY series*: 1,556
PBM series*: 1,269
PB2Y series*: 174
Total: 2,999
Gross total reported losses combat and operational: 215
Percent of production reported lost in combat or operationally 7.1%
* note that production numbers do not include models destined for lend-lease nor produced before 1940.

Total Japanese production and their reported combat losses
H6K series*: 181
H8K series: 167
H9K series: 31
Total: 379
Gross total reported losses combat and operational: 315
Percent lost of production reported lost in combat or operationally: 83.1%
* note that production numbers do not include models produced before 1940.

One might note that the end of war the inventory of Japanese flying boats, that is those still operational in the Japanese home islands at the end of the war totaled 9, yes, nine; that would be 5 H6Ks and 4 H8Ks, that could still get into the air in September 1945. Any surviving H9K series, or their losses for that matter, are not specifically mentioned in the available reports. Of these, today, I believe but a single H8K survives, located in Japan. This particular aircraft was held as captured war material by the USN until when it was returned to Japan in 1979 for restoration. The USN kept it parked at NAS Norfolk during most of the time in its possession. I remember, I was 9 or 10 at the time, actually looking inside (my memory: dark, cavernous and musty) when it was once briefly opened in the early 1960s. Oh, yeah, what happened to the other 55? Your guess is as good as mine, probably fetched up on a beach someplace inoperable or, equally likely, flew off somewhere and never returned and was never reported.

The inference to be drawn, though, just from production numbers, is that the Japanese did not ever have sufficient inventory at any one point in the war for dedicated SAR mission tasking as compared to available inventory of US production. Adding to those numbers the losses incurred by the Japanese, and the lack of SAR, especially the "S" search part becomes painfully obvious. Just another case of the greater production – in this case aircraft AND pilots – having a greater impact on operations, both in terms of operations, generally, and greater mission flexibility. Carried a step further, if one were to look at the end of the war, the USN had six dedicated SAR squadrons (VH-1 through VH-6) in the Pacific Theater, operating 6 flying boats (usually of the PBM variety) each. These squadrons were specifically tasked with SAR in support of and co-located in combat operations. At the same time there were some 25 other flying boat type equipped squadrons in the Pacific, to the west, northwest, and southwest to the far reaches of the USN operational theater, operating some 390 plus aircraft, any one of which were operated by folks trained and prepared to render rescue service or coordination. That's looking only at August 1945; some 425 plus available aircraft, more than the total Japanese production of flying boats for the entire war. This does not count the VPB squadrons stateside reforming nor the 8 VPB squadrons operating flying boats in the Atlantic, nor replacement or OTU training squadrons, nor transportation and utility squadrons, nor aircraft in maintenance and repair units, nor those assigned to headquarters commands, nor special development squadrons, nor general pool aircraft nor flying boat types assigned to any of a plethora of other activities.

For some basics on SAR orientation in the Pacific pages 97 through 104 of
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/2397/filename/2386.pdf this, entitled "War Zone Familiarization – Pacific Ocean Areas"

USAAF SAR history can be found described in "Air-Sea Rescue, 1941-1952" by Frank E Ransom, USAF Historical Study # 95, found at


https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/51-100/AFD-090602-014.pdf


Chapter 5, beginning on page 76 covers the Pacific and CBI theaters. If you read the orientation in the first link, you'll be happy to find some of the exact wording in this same chapter. Always nice to know they were consistent. Brief (very) description of USN SAR starts on page 102.

The Air Force Historical Research Agency - Numbered USAF Historical Studies (Numbered USAF Historical Studies) as mentioned in a previous post has some pretty interesting documents for folks who might have an interest in the USAAF and WW2.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2021)

Rich - as always excellent stuff!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 15, 2021)

Same as above.


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 16, 2021)

Okay, time for a firebomb. 
The MOST overrated plane of WW 2 in my opinion is ........... the P-51 Mustang.
Yes, it was was an outstanding fighter and had the range needed to do the job. 
But you'd think for all the hero worship it gets it won the war single handed.
It took on the Luftwaffe when they were already on the ropes.
It was graceful and easy to fly, but had a glass jaw, the cooling system.
It really wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the fame without an imported engine.
So, my Molotve cocktail has been tossed, you may resume your discussion. Cheers !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 16, 2021)

Burn the heretic!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Okay, time for a firebomb.
> 
> It took on the Luftwaffe when they were already on the ropes.


The LW was on the ropes in August 1942, schurley you made schome myschtayke? I think foul scorn of your firebomb, a woman might piSS it out in minutes.

With kind regards to the Mayor of London during the fire of London 1666.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

The P-51 was using a Packard V-1650, which was manufactured in the states, not imported.

And to add to that, the P-51 was designed for the British...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-51 was using a Packard V-1650, which was manufactured in the states, not imported.
> 
> And to add to that, the P-51 was designed for the British...


A good few didnt have Packard engines either, I think his firebomb has mixed up the As B/Cs and Ds as well as that whole Mustang thing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A good few didnt have Packard engines either, I think his firebomb has mixed up the As B/Cs and Ds as well as that whole Mustang thing.


Well...we've all seen those videos online where people toss gasoline on a fire.

It never ends well, but it's oddly entertaining

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 16, 2021)

Uhh, the Packard V-1650 was based on WHICH engine ????
By 1944 when the P-51C/D came into it's own the LW had been at war in the West for going on 5 years, the majority of it's best pilots were for the most part either dead or in the East.
The rest had been in hard combat with Spitfires, P-38s and P-47s, none of which I may need to remind you were no slouch or easy kills in combat.
The LW pilots by & large in the West were inferior in training to the Allied pilots by 1944, so most kills by P-51 pilots weren't against top notch opponents.
All of which made the P-51's star shine even brighter. I'm not saying it was a bad fighter, just over rated.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

Uhh the Packard V-1650 was based on the Rolls Royce Merlin, obviously, but It was NOT imported.
The Mustang's design proposed by North American Aviation was approved for purchase by the British Purchasing Commission, so *technically* both the P-51 and the Packard V-1650 are "British" even though they came from the U.S.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Uhh, the Packard V-1650 was based on WHICH engine ????
> By 1944 when the P-51C/D came into it's own the LW had been at war in the West for going on 5 years, the majority of it's best pilots were for the most part either dead or in the East.
> The rest had been in hard combat with Spitfires, P-38s and P-47s, none of which I may need to remind you were no slouch or easy kills in combat.
> The LW pilots by & large in the West were inferior in training to the Allied pilots by 1944, so most kills by P-51 pilots weren't against top notch opponents.
> All of which made the P-51's star shine even brighter. I'm not saying it was a bad fighter, just over rated.


Mustang Mk Is first entered French airspace on 10 May 1942 German airspace on 27 July 1942 shot down its first Fw190 in August 1942. The Packard was built in USA not imported and all Mustang mk I mk IA mk II P-51A and A36 versions had Allisson engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 16, 2021)

Even the outdated Boeing P-26 Peashooter in the hands of Jesus Villamor and his squadron of the Philippine Army Air Corp managed to shoot down three A6M Zeros and a G3M Betty, but I expect the IJN pilots were a bit overconfident and the PAAC pilots were lucky. Jesús A. Villamor - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 16, 2021)

I think that japanese actually loss only a bomber by P-26


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> I think that japanese actually loss only a bomber by P-26



Agreed...despite the claims, there are no corresponding A6M losses for the combats in which the PAAC P-26s participated. That does not detract from the courage of those Philippine pilots going to war in those old, tired, hand-me-down aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 16, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfire 190 109 and P51 could both disengage and re-engage from a fight with an A6M when they chose too, all four had the speed to run from an A6M and likewise run an A6M down, all four were protected from the A6M's guns bar the latter's 20mm's AP ammunition yet it was venerable from every type of the formers guns, even the generic .303 30/06 8x57 ball ammunition. The A6M had very long range which seems to be it's selling point, the allies could have stripped any number of their planes down to the A6M's spec, I used a PR Spit as an example and could have also had its range and low speed agility but all that would have resulted in is more Marianas Turkey shoot's, the Luftwaffe's found that out when they stripped their 109's to make them competitive with the Mustang late in the war.


With 'this respect' I meant forward visibility over the cowl allowing a deflection shot while keeping the target in view.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Uhh, the Packard V-1650 was based on WHICH engine ????


The *Packard V-1650 Merlin* is a version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engine, produced under license in the United States by the Packard Motor Car Company.








Packard V-1650 Merlin - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org







> By 1944 when the P-51C/D came into it's own the LW had been at war in the West for going on 5 years, the majority of it's best pilots were for the most part either dead or in the East.


Can you quantify that with references? A number of high scoring LW pilots survived the war, well documented in the old book by Toliver and Constable "Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe." 


J4F-2 said:


> The rest had been in hard combat with Spitfires, P-38s and P-47s, none of which I may need to remind you were no slouch or easy kills in combat.
> The LW pilots by & large in the West were inferior in training to the Allied pilots by 1944, so most kills by P-51 pilots weren't against top notch opponents.
> All of which made the P-51's star shine even brighter. I'm not saying it was a bad fighter, just over rated.


And where you're REALLY wrong is when and how the destruction of the Luftwaffe occurred. I suggest reading this thread 






Who Really Destroyed the Luftwaffe?


If the americans were solely responsible for the destruction of the LW, I think the war would have panned out completely differently. we have to do some navel gazing here, but one scenario is continued co-operation between the soviets and a bowing out of the war by the british and the...



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## NTGray (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Okay, time for a firebomb.
> The MOST overrated plane of WW 2 in my opinion is ........... the P-51 Mustang.
> Yes, it was was an outstanding fighter and had the range needed to do the job.
> But you'd think for all the hero worship it gets it won the war single handed.
> ...


The P-51 is arguably the most famous, and perhaps the most beloved, of American WWII fighter planes in part (I think) because there were so many still flying in recent years as racers. (How many are still in service in 2021? Anybody know?) That love may indeed be exaggerated (though a lot of it came from bomber pilots who had every right to love them). So, depending on who is doing the critiquing, the praise may well be a bit excessive. Also, many people consider the Mustang, like the Spitfire, to be especially good-looking, and we all know that looks matter. How is a Plain Jane like the P-47 Jug supposed to compete with that? But I still think that, even given the exaggerated praise, the Mustang really _was_ a great plane, whereas the Zero was _not_ all that great once you factor in the weaknesses as well as the strengths, yet the mythology of the Zero seems to me to be even more "over the top" than Mustang worship is. Therefore the Zero still deserves the "prize," even if only by a small margin.

[Shuffles papers and puts trial notes back in briefcase.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 16, 2021)

Where is Andrei? I want sunflower seeds ...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 16, 2021)

Look, I wasn't going to go into tech specs, discussion and a pissing contest, I was just offering my opinion on the most over rated fighter of WW 2.
You may not like it and I'm not asking you to, it's my opinion.
You are all welcome to worship the P-51 as much as you like, I choose not to. It was a good airplane, not the best and not a Saint.
And dat's all I got to say 'bout dat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Look, I wasn't going to go into tech specs, discussion and a pissing contest, I was just offering my opinion on the most over rated fighter of WW 2.
> You may not like it and I'm not asking you to, it's my opinion.
> You are all welcome to worship the P-51 as much as you like, I choose not to. It was a good airplane, not the best and not a Saint.
> And dat's all I got to say 'bout dat.


I think it is nice that you shared your feelings, after all only feelings matter. How do you feel about Grumman products?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Look, I wasn't going to go into tech specs, discussion and a pissing contest, I was just offering my opinion on the most over rated fighter of WW 2.
> You may not like it and I'm not asking you to, it's my opinion.
> You are all welcome to worship the P-51 as much as you like, I choose not to. It was a good airplane, not the best and not a Saint.
> And dat's all I got to say 'bout dat.


Well if you're going to state your opinion on this forum, there will be some, if not many on who will dispel the BS with *TECHNICAL SPECS!* You're entitled to your opinions even though *reality, history AND FACTS dictates otherwise.*

"And dat's all I got to say 'bout dat."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

I think the Spitfire is over rated because it has those roundel thingies on it...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the Spitfire is over rated because it has those roundel thingies on it...


All better now

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> All better now
> View attachment 648477


Close, but if we are talking a world-beater, this is the one!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Close, but if we are talking a world-beater, this is the one!
> View attachment 648478


Well you just cant argue with that. After all it did circle the globe, with fare paying passengers.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

I remember when I was about six, looking through the Airfix catalogue and wondering why planes had camouflage and targets painted on, it still doesnt make much sense to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Look, I wasn't going to go into tech specs, discussion and a pissing contest, I was just offering my opinion on the most over rated fighter of WW 2.
> You may not like it and I'm not asking you to, it's my opinion.
> You are all welcome to worship the P-51 as much as you like, I choose not to. It was a good airplane, not the best and not a Saint.
> And dat's all I got to say 'bout dat.


I like your moxie, kid!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2021)

Go Grumman! I’m from Long Island.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Well you just cant argue with that. After all it did circle the globe, with fare paying passengers.


All from the Secret base in the Antarctic!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Go Grumman! I’m from Long Island.


Grumman products were a waste of aluminium , cast iron, drawing paper and blue paint and dat is all I have to say about dat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Grumman products were a waste of aluminium, drawing paper and blue paint and dat is all I have to say about dat.


Agree. They should have been made from spruce, birch and balsa.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Agree. They should have been made from spruce, birch and balsa.


Make it from what you like, just make it shaped like a P-51.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Grumman products were a waste of aluminium, drawing paper and blue paint and dat is all I have to say about dat.


Oh, but Grummans were manly man aeroplanes because of their hand-crank main gear.
Hydraulic gear is for girly-men and HIGHLY over rated...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the Spitfire is over rated because it has those roundel thingies on it...



I wonder why the RAF made the roundels out of lead because every time an aircraft had roundels fitted it went slower.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 16, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder why the RAF made the roundels out of lead because every time an aircraft had roundels fitted it went slower.



It's probably a conspiracy to get out of a contract. "The roundels shall each weigh 22 pounds."

That's not even counting the fin-flashes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 16, 2021)

I KNEW it!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Frog (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Grumman products were a waste of aluminium, drawing paper and blue paint and dat is all I have to say about dat.



Aluminium ? Grumman are Iron Works.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

Frog said:


> Aluminium ? Grumman are Iron Works.


Thanks for the shout out, Ive edited the post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 16, 2021)

I thought the roundels were substituted for armor plate and nose / tail weight, in lieu of fuel (so it could have short range, like all British aircraft), and were also used to shift the center of gravity so the airplane naturally headed for a coastal British airfield where it would land due to fuel shortage.

Red Stars meant you were going to get shot down, at least in the first two years of the Russian Front.

The U.S. insignia meant you were going to fly an 8-hour mission at high altitudes, see no German airplanes, and would very definitely be freezing when you got home, where you would grumble about the war while drinking lukewarm beer, chasing British women, and generally being an "Ugly American" until morning, when you would do it all over again.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Both sides were fitting armour and SS tanks as quickly as possible for a reason after the battle of France, thinking the unprotected A6M is going to survive in view of the facts is strange logic.



And yet, across the other side of the world the A6M was found to be more than a match than heavier armoured Allied fighters and pilots flying the type shot down a lot of aircraft with armour, not only that it earned itself a myth of invincibility, which, incidentally is why we are here, so strange logic? Not me. But of course, lets apply yours and say that despite its victories and its formidable reputation in the SEA campaign it wouldn't have been any use at all in the Battle of Britain, that is, if the Japanese had a time machine...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

NTGray said:


> The fact that I think is most important is that in early 1942, when the Zero gained its reputation, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio favored the Zero by only 1.5 to one, which is not that big an advantage. By the beginning of 1943, after the Americans had learned how to use the Wildcat's advantages effectively, the Zero/Wildcat kill ratio had swung to favor the Wildcat by nearly 6 to 1. This indicates that the superior maneuverability of the Zero (that part is not under question) was not enough to guarantee victory. The Wildcat's advantages (ruggedness, diving speed, a radio), along with superior pilot tactics and training (especially in gunnery) more than outweighed the Zero's advantages.



What's not under question here is the US response to a threat, nor its tactics, which were necessary simply because the F4F was outclassed by the A6M. In hands of powers with less training and resources than the US Navy the differences between the two types would have been more marked. To be fair, the standard of aircraft carrier based fighters between 1940 and 1943 up to when the F6F enters the scene isn't that spectacular, there's the A6M, the F4F, the Brewster Buffalo, the Fairey Fulmar, the Hawker Sea Hurricane, the Gloster Sea Gladiator the Supermarine Seafire I (later Seafires were obviously far more potent), so the A6M looks pretty good compared to its contemporaries.

To really appreciate the capabilities of a weapon it needs to be considered next to the other aircraft in use at the time it was, rather than attempting to compare it to everything else. Obviously the A6M was in service until the very end of the war, so that means it was contemporary to almost every fighter in theatre throughout the war, but to begin with, in the first year when the USA is taking its first steps into the war, the A6M is by far one of the best fighters in theatre.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

I dont agree that the Zero would have been useless in Europe. If Goering had a lot of them in 1940 it would put his bomber force in reach of the North of England and Scotland that were only defended by squadrons that were still training and re forming in the later stages of the battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> What's not under question here is the US response to a threat, nor its tactics, which were necessary simply because the F4F was outclassed by the A6M. In hands of powers with less training and resources than the US Navy the differences between the two types would have been more marked. To be fair, the standard of aircraft carrier based fighters between 1940 and 1943 up to when the F6F enters the scene isn't that spectacular, there's the A6M, the F4F, the Brewster Buffalo, the Fairey Fulmar, the Hawker Sea Hurricane, the Gloster Sea Gladiator the Supermarine Seafire I (later Seafires were obviously far more potent), so the A6M looks pretty good compared to its contemporaries.
> 
> To really appreciate the capabilities of a weapon it needs to be considered next to the other aircraft in use at the time it was, rather than attempting to compare it to everything else. Obviously the A6M was in service until the very end of the war, so that means it was contemporary to almost every fighter in theatre throughout the war, but to begin with, in the first year when the USA is taking its first steps into the war, the A6M is by far one of the best fighters in theatre.


Agree with most of your points, the F4F and Zero are clearly the two best with the fulmar being better than it had a right to be.
But if tactics can make the F4F as good as or imo better than the zero than the Zero isn’t actually better. In the first year of the war they basically went one for one in fights and that’s while the IJN had its best pilots.
Thus the zero is overrated, at least until quite recently, as the zero was always described as clearly superior. 
The P-40 actually did really well against the zero as did the P-38 when including early war combatants in theatre.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

MCamp said:


> But if tactics can make the F4F as good as or imo better than the zero than the Zero isn’t actually better. In the first year of the war they basically went one for one in fights and that’s while the IJN had its best pilots.



Not really. An expert combat pilot flying an inferior aircraft will beat an inexperienced pilot flying a superior aircraft almost every time.

The advantage was the US Navy pilots' training in the face of adversity. Without it, the superiority of the A6M would have been far more apparent.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

MCamp said:


> In the first year of the war they basically went one for one in fights and that’s while the IJN had its best pilots.



The first year of whose war?

Britain and Germany had been fighting since 1939.

Japan had been fighting since 1937.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the Spitfire is over rated because it has those roundel thingies on it...





pbehn said:


> All better now
> View attachment 648477





GrauGeist said:


> Close, but if we are talking a world-beater, this is the one!
> View attachment 648478



deja vu

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2021)

wuzak said:


> deja vu

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Not really. An expert combat pilot flying an inferior aircraft will beat an inexperienced pilot flying a superior aircraft almost every time.
> 
> The advantage was the US Navy pilots' training in the face of adversity. Without it, the superiority of the A6M would have been far more apparent.


Right now I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" and how Cmdr Blackburn (Later Admiral) got VF-17 into a top notch unit.

Training, training, training....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## varsity07840 (Nov 16, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> Even the outdated Boeing P-26 Peashooter in the hands of Jesus Villamor and his squadron of the Philippine Army Air Corp managed to shoot down three A6M Zeros and a G3M Betty, but I expect the IJN pilots were a bit overconfident and the PAAC pilots were lucky. Jesús A. Villamor - Wikipedia
> 
> View attachment 648389
> iaster


You’re too quick to believe the propaganda that came out of the Philippines intended to offset the disasters at Clark, Iba, et al. None of Buzz Wagner’s kills were confirmed.


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 16, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" and how Cmdr Blackburn (Later Admiral) got VF-17 into a top notch unit.



Good book, BTW. Tommy Blackburn of VF-17 fame, though, retired a Captain. His brother, Paul P Blackburn, retired as a Vice Admiral. I always heard that Tommy, despite his personal problems ( he once told my father that it was good to retire as a Captain as promotion to flag rank would have been one on the Navy' biggest post war mistakes), was a much nicer fellow than his brother.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Training, training, training...



It shows the quality of those guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" and how Cmdr Blackburn (Later Admiral) got VF-17 into a top notch unit.
> 
> Training, training, training....


Pretty obvious when you think we take a year to learn to stand up and another to walk.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> Good book, BTW. Tommy Blackburn of VF-17 fame, though, retired a Captain. His brother, Paul P Blackburn, retired as a Vice Admiral. I always heard that Tommy, despite his personal problems ( he once told my father that it was good to retire as a Captain as promotion to flag rank would have been one on the Navy' biggest post war mistakes), was a much nicer fellow than his brother.


Thanks for the correction Rich - got him and his brother confused!


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 16, 2021)

Nah, I'm usually good by the next morning.


pbehn said:


> Pretty obvious when you think we take a year to learn to stand up and another to walk.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

From Mikesh in Zero Fighter, "The Zero was superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 feet, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes were equal in level speed. In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut out in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero."

This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. Basically, the A6M2 Model 21 had better speed, better climb, better ceiling, better range and tighter turning circle than the F4F-4. Armed with cannon, the A6M was definitely the superior fighter, therefore it was better tactics and training that enabled the US Navy's F4F pilots to overcome the type.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 16, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The first year of whose war?
> 
> Britain and Germany had been fighting since 1939.
> 
> Japan had been fighting since 1937.


This one








Pacific War - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




you know the one where the wildcat and zero fought. The one where the zero actually taught in combat against capable adversaries

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> From Mikesh in Zero Fighter, "The Zero was superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 feet, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes were equal in level speed. In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut out in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero."
> 
> This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. Basically, the A6M2 Model 21 had better speed, better climb, better ceiling, better range and tighter turning circle than the F4F-4. Armed with cannon, the A6M was definitely the superior fighter, therefore it was better tactics and training that enabled the US Navy's F4F pilots to overcome the type.


Literally never heard anyone say the zero was even close to as capable in dive speed


----------



## MCamp (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Not really. An expert combat pilot flying an inferior aircraft will beat an inexperienced pilot flying a superior aircraft almost every time.
> 
> The advantage was the US Navy pilots' training in the face of adversity. Without it, the superiority of the A6M would have been far more apparent.


So is your claim that the first year japanese pilots were worse or less trained?


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Literally never heard anyone say the zero was even close to as capable in dive speed



Well, Bob Mikesh is a respected author who had access to the official combat report, so it's been knowledge since 1942...


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 16, 2021)

And if I'm not mistaken, the Akutan Zero was flown very conservatively.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

In Mikesh's book, under the column on the Zero 52 versus the FM-2; "The Zero was slightly superior to the FM-2 in initial dive acceleration, after which the dives were about the same. Zooms after dives were about equal for the two aircraft."

Against the F4U-1A is this interesting tidbit: "Initial dive accelerations for the Zero and the Corsair were about the same after which the Corsair was far superior, and slightly superior in zooms after dives."


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2021)

MCamp said:


> So is your claim that the first year japanese pilots were worse or less trained?



Can you show me where I said that?

My point is obvious. Please don't read anything into it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 16, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> . . . This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. . . .



Interesting, since this A6M2 was not flown by a US pilot, LCDR Eddie Sanders, from Flight Test, before 16 September 1942 and the his initial report was dated 29 September 1942.

A later report, BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3, dated 4 November 1942, stated this in regards to comparison of the A6M2 and the F4F-4:

_"COMPARISON WITH F4F-4: The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet, and is superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes are equal in level speed. In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F is greater than that for the Zero). However advantage should be taken where possible, of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two."_

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 16, 2021)

See attached BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3, 4 Nov 1942

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I dont agree that the Zero would have been useless in Europe. If Goering had a lot of them in 1940 it would put his bomber force in reach of the North of England and Scotland that were only defended by squadrons that were still training and re forming in the later stages of the battle.


Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 17, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> From Mikesh in Zero Fighter, "The Zero was superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 feet, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes were equal in level speed. In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut out in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero."
> 
> This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. Basically, the A6M2 Model 21 had better speed, better climb, better ceiling, better range and tighter turning circle than the F4F-4. Armed with cannon, the A6M was definitely the superior fighter, therefore it was better tactics and training that enabled the US Navy's F4F pilots to overcome the type.


It looks like we've got two sources, one a Japanese pilot and the other using flight tests from a captured and repaired Zero, saying that the Zero and Wildcat were about equal in dives, while many other sources, primarily F4F pilots who flew against Zeros in combat, reported that the F4F could run away from a Zero in a dive. But I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value. Also, at 300mph and above the Zero's ailerons were almost impossible to move; all the Wildcat had to do was turn (especially to the right) and the Zero was unable to follow.

I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 17, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Not really. An expert combat pilot flying an inferior aircraft will beat an inexperienced pilot flying a superior aircraft almost every time.
> 
> The advantage was the US Navy pilots' training in the face of adversity. Without it, the superiority of the A6M would have been far more apparent.


Generally true, but only up to a certain point. The inferior plane has to be at least _somewhat_ comparable. Somehow I don't think that well-trained American pilots flying Brewster Buffaloes would have done nearly as well. And the part about "training" did not involve magic; even the best-trained American Wildcat pilot could not beat a Zero in a classic dogfight. Rather, the Americans learned from combat experience what the Zero's weaknesses were and found a way to use the Wildcat's stronger points to good effect. They could not have done that if the Wildcat _didn't have_ any strong points.

(But I will ask others with greater knowledge: would the Thach Weave have worked as well with Buffaloes?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 17, 2021)

NTGray said:


> I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.


While there is much to learn learn from combat reports of the pilot's themselves, there are always unknown variables that could effect the actual outcome of a dogfight. When an enemy aircraft breaks off combat it could be doing so for a multitude of reasons, and some are not related purely to aircraft performance. Generally tactics play a huge role in whether or not to continue pursuit, as do things like target availability, mission requirements, damage sustained, ect. 

That said, it's my opinion that Wildcat pilots were more confident in using the dive to break off combat while Zero drivers understood there was very little chance of effectively catching a Wildcat utilizing this tactic and often decided not to pursue. 

Just my two cents...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Nov 17, 2021)

NTGray said:


> [Shuffles papers and puts trial notes back in briefcase.]


I guess that's us told, then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 17, 2021)

NTGray said:


> I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value



If you check the above BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3 you will see that the USN pilots rated the A6M2 top speed as 326 mph at 16000 feet . . . just short of as fast as the standard issue was rated. 

The 23rd FG/Holloway report indicates 289 mph at 15000 feet, so perhaps the AAF, remember this was in China, did not push their #3372 as hard as they might. I would suspect that there could be more to wring out of that machine at a dedicated testing facility in the states, but I've yet to discover the results of any such testing. The 23rd FG/Holloway tests were done just before the plane was being readied for flight to India from Kunming and shipment on to the states. Holloway's report notes up front:

_"1. Subject airplane is a type Zero Mark I, Carrier Fighter Japanese No. P 5016. All
tests were conducted by the undersigned, and such conclusions and remarks contained herein
regarding performance as do not involve mathematical rates or measures are the opinion of
this officer.

"2. All tests were carried out at Kunming, China, and comparative performance with
the P-40K and P-43A1 aircraft tabulated. Inasmuch as the elevation of the Kunming airdrome
is above 5000 feet, the minimum altitude at which performance test were run was 10000 feet.

"3. Inasmuch as subject airplane is being flown to India this date, and numerous
photographs have already been forwarded, technical data given is brief and of a general
nature. Proper facilities do not exist at this station for complete disassembly and inspection of
parts, or for testing of materials. No dimensions are given as these are already known and
have been published by the Air Forces Intelligence Service."_

The "P 5016" was the number the NCAF applied to the plane; the IJN B/N was 3372.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think it is nice that you shared your feelings, after all only feelings matter. How do you feel about Grumman products?


Since you asked, I think the F6F series, especially the F6F-5 was probably the best all round fighter of the war.
Easy to fly, easy land, good at what it was designed to do, it took on all comers in both major theaters with a winning record.
Bordering on excellent in air to air, decent in air to ground with a passable ground delivery load out.
Not the flashiest or the fastest, kind of like a hammer, not much to look at, but damned good at what it was supposed to do.
Again, my opinion only and not up for discussion.
And BTW, don't let the Grumman logo make you think I'm biased. I do like Grumman Iron, but my passion/obsession is their amphibians, not so much the fighters, they're okay, but not my real thing. You want to get into pissing contest, start someting about the Widgeon, you'll lose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?.


For the distances involved this "what if" Zero could have had both armour protection and sealed tanks, depending how far you want to go up the coast. For an attack on Teesside there were only a few squadrons who could meet it and in August they were in bad shape. Or alternatively break through the Radar network in East Anglia once over land the ROC had real trouble tracking a raid for long distances. It is 297 miles direct Teesside to Amsterdam.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Since you asked, I think the F6F series, especially the F6F-5 was probably the best all round fighter of the war.
> Easy to fly, easy land, good at what it was designed to do, it took on all comers in both major theaters with a winning record.
> Bordering on excellent in air to air, decent in air to ground with a passable ground delivery load out.
> Not the flashiest or the fastest, kind of like a hammer, not much to look at, but damned good at what it was supposed to do.
> ...


The Widgeon's shadow was a waste of the water it was cast upon.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 17, 2021)

I wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
I'll wait.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> I wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
> Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
> I'll wait.


It is my opinion and dat is de end of dat. Like your opinion that the P-51 turned up when the work was done, while in fact the only US fighter in service before it was the P-40 and that P-39 thing. I dont do amphibian aircraft discussions because I live on land and use runways. A Widgeon is a baby Catalina with all the issues that that entails.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 17, 2021)

NTGray said:


> It looks like we've got two sources, one a Japanese pilot and the other using flight tests from a captured and repaired Zero, saying that the Zero and Wildcat were about equal in dives, while many other sources, primarily F4F pilots who flew against Zeros in combat, reported that the F4F could run away from a Zero in a dive. But I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value. Also, at 300mph and above the Zero's ailerons were almost impossible to move; all the Wildcat had to do was turn (especially to the right) and the Zero was unable to follow.
> 
> I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.


if they wwere to roll right while diving, the zero couldn’t follow that at speed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It is my opinion and dat is de end of dat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> Interesting, since this A6M2 was not flown by a US pilot, LCDR Eddie Sanders, from Flight Test, before 16 September 1942 and the his initial report was dated 29 September 1942.



Getting out my rather hefty copy of Mikesh's book again... tum tee tum... Yes, he states that the aircraft arrived at NAS North Island in August 1942...



PAT303 said:


> Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?



Yet another sweeping generalisation without any basis of fact based purely on prejudicial perception...



NTGray said:


> Generally true, but only up to a certain point. The inferior plane has to be at least _somewhat_ comparable. Somehow I don't think that well-trained American pilots flying Brewster Buffaloes would have done nearly as well.



Well obviously, we are specifically referring to the F4F and A6M, but again, it depends on the pilot. If you have an excellent combat pilot in the F4F, he is gonna defeat the less experienced A6M pilot, hands down. Vice versa, if the Zero pilot is the more experienced, he's gonna get the better of the F4F with ease. Despite that though, the A6M2 _was_ superior to the F4F in almost all major parameters. 

As for the Buffalo, in British/Australian/New Zealand hands, Buffalos did better than perhaps what might have been expected against the A6M. Plenty of Commonwealth pilots shot down enemy fighters flying Buffalos in Malaya, the majority of whom were or were to become aces in their own right, but only a few became aces in the Buffalo. The highest scorer in the type with the RAF was New Zealander Geoff Fisken who had around 6 enemy aircraft confirmed, with shared kills as well, flying the Buffalo. His last kill in the type, in February 1942, was an A6M, which in the Buffalo he shot down at least two as confirmed kills.

Despite its reputation, the less experienced Australians and New Zealanders were pleased to be flying something modern; New Zealander Sgt Vic Bargh stated, "Well, we all thought they were good, you know. We didn't know they were out of date!"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 17, 2021)

Okay, I read and watched a bunch of stuff about my beloved Buffalo. I am under the impression that the Buffalo never faced the Zero except at the Battle of Midway. Could those Zeros have been Ki-43s or even Ki-27s?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 17, 2021)

Buffalos faced A6M2s at Singapore, and in the NEI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 17, 2021)

And now I know. Thanks Greg. I'm taking that as Gospel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Nov 17, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> I wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
> Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
> I'll wait.


JRF Goose - A real/genuine small amfib

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 17, 2021)

Ya know, now that you mention it, The Admiral had brought up a "what if" Buffalo interception of the Japanese strike against PoW and Repulse. 
A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 17, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Getting out my rather hefty copy of Mikesh's book again... tum tee tum... Yes, he states that the aircraft arrived at NAS North Island in August 1942...


Yes, as Mikesh's book says (and I have my own copy) the Atukan Zero arrived in San Diego in August 1942. But it did not fly until Eddie Sanders took it up on 16 September, period, end.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2021)

No. 488 (New Zealand) Squadron first encountered A6Ms on 12 January 1942, during their first tangle with the enemy, during the first encounter the squadron made on that day, their foe was Army Ki-27s, but according to one Buffalo pilot, he was chased by a Zero. Over the next few weeks the squadron encountered A6Ms on most combat engagements as the escorts for the naval bombers, G4Ms, the squadron was attacking, with Ki-43s typically escorting the Army bombers, Ki-21s, which were claimed by the unit's pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> Yes, as Mikesh's book says (and I have my own copy) the Atukan Zero arrived in San Diego in August 1942. But it did not fly until Eddie Sanders took it up on 156 September, period, end.


I suspect a misunderstanding, I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that the book stated it arrived in August and based on your reaction perhaps I should have made that clearer. It was certainly not intended to confuse you, R.Leonard, so apologies if it did.


----------



## R Leonard (Nov 17, 2021)

Not confused, just trying to keep everyone straight on timelines and such. I sometimes tend to be just a little pedantic which should not be taken personally.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2021)

R Leonard said:


> Not confused, just trying to keep everyone straight on timelines and such. I sometimes tend to be just a little pedantic which should not be taken personally.



Not at all, R.Leonard, your interjections are most welcome and fascinating to read.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Ya know, now that you mention it, The Admiral had brought up a "what if" Buffalo interception of the Japanese strike against PoW and Repulse.
> A mind is a terrible thing to lose.


Any air cover would have been better than none i suppose

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> Since you asked, I think the F6F series, especially the F6F-5 was probably the best all round fighter of the war.
> Easy to fly, easy land, good at what it was designed to do, it took on all comers in both major theaters with a winning record.
> Bordering on excellent in air to air, decent in air to ground with a passable ground delivery load out.
> Not the flashiest or the fastest, kind of like a hammer, not much to look at, but damned good at what it was supposed to do.
> ...


Would have been great to see the Hellcat get a four bladed propeller like the Corsair, but she already could do the job so we didn’t get to see that as grumman didn’t change things very much if the plane was already good enough for the the job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 18, 2021)

The XF6F-6 got one and it worked better than the 3 blade with a top speed of 417 mph and was supposed to go into production in 1944, but it used the same engine as the F4U-4 which had precedence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 18, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Would have been great to see the Hellcat get a four bladed propeller like the Corsair, but she already could do the job so we didn’t get to see that as grumman didn’t change things very much if the plane was already good enough for the the job.



Some more familiar with the Corsair may be able to confirm - the F4U-4, that had its first deliveries in early 1945, was the first Corsair to have the 4 lade prop.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

J4F-2 said:


> The XF6F-6 got one and it worked better than the 3 blade with a top speed of 417 mph and was supposed to go into production in 1944, but it used the same engine as the F4U-4 which had precedence.


I don't think it was a matter of "engine precedence" and although the 417 mph top speed is thrown around in many publications ,there seems to be no flight test or performance charts indicating this unless Mike Williams has them stashed somewhere. One of our members mentioned in an old post about this that there is also a Grumman report that indicated the XF6F-6 made 425 mph at 25,000, (July 1944, flown by Grumman test pilot Pat Gallo) but as it was a prototype this might not be representative of the performance of a combat laden aircraft.

The Navy took deliveries of the F4U-4 in January 1945 and in it's combat configuration showed a top speed of 448 mph. Although the F6F-6 would have been a great aircraft I think that disruption of the production line coupled with the potential of greater growth of the F4U series caused the Navy not to pursue the -6.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Any air cover would have been better than none i suppose



Especially when we consider that the G3Ms/G4Ms were unescorted and flying either medium altitude level bomb runs, or low-level torpedo runs. It would have been much harder to, say, anvil _Repulse_ and get four hits had there been some Buffaloes denying them a smooth and steady run-in.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BobB (Nov 18, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Generally true, but only up to a certain point. The inferior plane has to be at least _somewhat_ comparable. Somehow I don't think that well-trained American pilots flying Brewster Buffaloes would have done nearly as well. And the part about "training" did not involve magic; even the best-trained American Wildcat pilot could not beat a Zero in a classic dogfight. Rather, the Americans learned from combat experience what the Zero's weaknesses were and found a way to use the Wildcat's stronger points to good effect. They could not have done that if the Wildcat _didn't have_ any strong points.
> 
> (But I will ask others with greater knowledge: would the Thach Weave have worked as well with Buffaloes?)


Geoff Fisken, an inexperienced pilot, became an ace flying Brewsters in Singapore. While he was inexperienced, he had more time in the Brewster than most of his companions as he had done test flights on airplanes after their assembly. He also mentioned that they lost a lot of pilots learning what they should and shouldn't do. No primary source but I recall a comment that Marion Carl said he could have done as well at Guadalcanal with Brewsters as with Wildcats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

BobB said:


> Geoff Fisken, an inexperienced pilot, became an ace flying Brewsters in Singapore. While he was inexperienced, he had more time in the Brewster than most of his companions as he had done test flights on airplanes after their assembly. He also mentioned that they lost a lot of pilots learning what they should and shouldn't do. No primary source but I recall a comment that Marion Carl said he could have done as well at Guadalcanal with Brewsters as with Wildcats.


I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" by Capt Tom Blackburn (VF-17 fame) and he felt the F2A was inadequate for combat but good for fleet training especially as a transition into the F4F.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BobB (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" by Capt Tom Blackburn (VF-17 fame) and he felt the F2A was inadequate for combat but good for fleet training especially as a transition into the F4F.


Someone who flew worn out F2A's in training said he would have been more confident taking an SNJ into combat. That's probably an exageration but a worn out R-1820 might not compare well with a new R-1340. Exactly which version of the Buffalo someone flew could have affected their opinion as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

BobB said:


> Someone who flew worn out F2A's in training said he would have been more confident taking an SNJ into combat. That's probably an exageration but a worn out R-1820 might not compare well with a new R-1340. Exactly which version of the Buffalo someone flew could have affected their opinion as well.


I believe Blackburn got some pretty decent ships into his unit despite being fleet rejects. He was in VF-2 when they first got the Buffalo and was the unit's maintenance officer so I think he somewhat knew what he was doing. Now - "worn out R-1820s"? In what capacity? How do you know they were "worn out" or do you have proof of this? There were support organizations who overhauled engines (for individual squadrons) as they came due based on manufacturer requirements so I'd like to know where you think these engines were "worn out" or if individual squadrons were flying aircraft with engines beyond TBO? Additionally, what makes you think the any of the F2A-2s operated by VF-2/3 were "worn out" when they only been in service between 18 months and 2 years in peacetime conditions?


----------



## ssnider (Nov 18, 2021)

The F2A3's were used continuously as advanced trainers after Midway until they wore out or the war ended. Most pilots that flew the m as trainers discripe them as worn out slugs.


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

BobB said:


> Geoff Fisken, an inexperienced pilot, became an ace flying Brewsters in Singapore. While he was inexperienced, he had more time in the Brewster than most of his companions as he had done test flights on airplanes after their assembly. He also mentioned that they lost a lot of pilots learning what they should and shouldn't do. No primary source but I recall a comment that Marion Carl said he could have done as well at Guadalcanal with Brewsters as with Wildcats.


Maybe, the Brewster were too fragile for carrier operations thus the F4F was clearly better in that situation, though I imagine there would have been more damage on Henderson landings as well but to a lesser degree. Buffalo was also less well armed as the wildcat. Carl was an expert pilot so posssibly true for him but lesser pilots would likely not have done as well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

ssnider said:


> The F2A3's were used continuously as advanced trainers after Midway until they wore out or the war ended. Most pilots that flew the m as trainers discripe them as worn out slugs.


Your source? And the pilots using them in training were just transitioning out of advanced trainers (N2S/ SNJ) so what would they compare them too??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

MCamp said:


> *Maybe, the Brewster were too fragile for carrier operations* thus the F4F was clearly better in that situation, though I imagine there would have been more damage on Henderson landings as well but to a lesser degree. Buffalo was also less well armed as the wildcat. Carl was an expert pilot so posssibly true for him but lesser pilots would likely not have done as well


The F2A-1 did have some landing gear issues when first deployed, there is nothing that I ever seen to say "they were too frail." Blackburn mentioned in "Jolly Rogers" that the F2A handled better on the ground than the F4F!

The F2F had a short stint where it was "state of the art" but the way aviation was advancing in the late 30s/ early 40s it was quickly eclipsed and had little or no room for growth. The F4F was in the same situation but was able to hold it's own. Lastly Brewster was a horribly run company so the nail was in the coffin.


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F2A-1 did have some landing gear issues when first deployed, there is nothing that I ever seen to say "they were too frail." Blackburn mentioned in "Jolly Rogers" that the F2A handled better on the ground than the F4F!
> 
> The F2F had a short stint where it was "state of the art" but the way aviation was advancing in the late 30s/ early 40s it was quickly eclipsed and had little or no room for growth. The F4F was in the same situation but was able to hold it's own. Lastly Brewster was a horribly run company so the nail was on the coffin.


Should have clarified that it was the gear that was 90% of the fragile issue
Brester was the American Blackburn lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Should have clarified that it was the gear that was 90% of the fragile issue


And eventually corrected but it didn't help with it's ultimate longevity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

This video helps explain the zero be F4F very well, the whole channel is exceptional. It explains whike the intial dive speed was similar the never exceed speed for the zero was 410 mph and was very hard to control above 350mph. whike the f4f had no VNE speed and thus was drag limited and thus could dive at 540 mph while under control

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

MCamp said:


> Carl was an expert pilot so posssibly true for him but lesser pilots would likely not have done as well



When we look at these planes as a weapons system, the pilot _is_ the processing power of the weapons system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 18, 2021)

NTGray said:


> That whole Flying Tigers remark was a side comment, and when/if I make a separate discussion from it, it will be in the context of the P-40 being an "obsolete" plane by the time the war started


The P-40 wasn't obsolete by the time the war started, because it wasn't in service until a year AFTER it started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The P-40 wasn't obsolete by the time the war started, because it wasn't in service until a year AFTER it started.


Correct and it wasn’t obsolete as it did a lot of good work in the MTO and other areas

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The P-40 wasn't obsolete by the time the war started, because it wasn't in service until a year AFTER it started.



Keeping in mind -- again -- how the pilot used the plane, the P-40 was a dangerous opponent into 1943, and later in CBI where Japanese fighters weren't advancing so much as their German counterparts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The P-40 wasn't obsolete by the time the war started, because it wasn't in service until a year AFTER it started.


If you want to consider when the war started for the US.


----------



## BobB (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe Blackburn got some pretty decent ships into his unit despite being fleet rejects. He was in VF-2 when they first got the Buffalo and was the unit's maintenance officer so I think he somewhat knew what he was doing. Now - "worn out R-1820s"? In what capacity? How do you know they were "worn out" or do you have proof of this? There were support organizations who overhauled engines (for individual squadrons) as they came due based on manufacturer requirements so I'd like to know where you think these engines were "worn out" or if individual squadrons were flying aircraft with engines beyond TBO? Additionally, what makes you think the any of the F2A-2s operated by VF-2/3 were "worn out" when they only been in service between 18 months and 2 years in peacetime conditions?


I'm going on the description of "worn out" by the pilot who said he rather take an SNJ into combat. I don't think that his name was Blackburn. Since he said he'd rather have an SNJ, it would appear that he was comparing his Buffaloes to SNJ's, wouldn't it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

BobB said:


> I'm going on the description of "worn out" by the pilot who said he rather take an SNJ into combat. I don't think that his name was Blackburn. Since he said he'd rather have an SNJ,* it would appear that he was comparing his Buffaloes to SNJ's, wouldn't it?*


NO - as stated, FIRST if "this pilot" (who ever he is) was coming out of a training squadron with no high performance aircraft experience, then I don't know what he would base his opinion on as he's still being trained. I think a Buffalo on it's worse day will out perform an SNJ. SECOND - if "this pilot" was an instructor with some fleet time under his belt, I would take the comment a bit more serious, but again, just saying an aircraft is "worn out" with no specifics comes down to a subjective opinion.

I once worked on several aircraft that were freshly overhauled, engine and airframe. The "customer" did not want up to touch cosmetics (exterior paint, internal furnishings). I had one pilot taking delivery of one of our overhauled aircraft and his comment when he saw the aircraft based on cosmetics, without researching what we did to the aircraft, "boy this is one tired bird." He didn't like the fact that the co-pilot's seat was torn...

The aircraft met all performance requirements found in the -1 (flight manual)


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NO - as stated, FIRST if "this pilot" (who ever he is) was coming out of a training squadron with no high performance aircraft experience, then I don't know what he would base his opinion on as he's still being trained. I think a Buffalo on it's worse day will out perform an SNJ. SECOND - if "this pilot" was an instructor with some fleet time under his belt, I would take the comment a bit more serious, but again, just saying an aircraft is "worn out" with no specifics comes down to a subjective opinion.
> 
> I once worked on several aircraft that were freshly overhauled, engine and airframe. The "customer" did not want up to touch cosmetics (exterior paint, internal furnishings). I had one pilot taking delivery of one of our overhauled aircraft and his comment when he saw the aircraft based on cosmetics, without researching what we did to the aircraft, "boy this is one tired bird." He didn't like the fact that the co-pilot's seat was torn...
> 
> The aircraft met all performance requirements found in the -1 (flight manual)


"Little Deuce Coupe, you don't know what I got".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> "Little Deuce Coupe, you don't know what I got".


Is that the actual lyric, I never understood what that was about lol, what does it mean?


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 18, 2021)

A car that looks like an Ercoupe and performs like an Incom T-65

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> A car that looks like an Ercoupe and performs like an Incom T-65


Now I have really learned something, I have been singing the wrong words to a great song for most of my life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Is that the actual lyric, I never understood what that was about lol, what does it mean?


A deuce coupe is a 1932 Ford 2 door coupe, small light car, Ford's first year with a V8. 
But by the 60's when this song came out, 32 Fords were very popular with hot rodders, and they loved to put bigger engines in their cars. So if a 32 Ford had the full hood on it, there's no guessing what might be under it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 18, 2021)

I knew someone would quickly post that. I wanted to keep it aviation related.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I knew someone would quickly post that. I wanted to keep it aviation related.


Hey, I am learning stuff here. I thought it was "My little deece coop" with no idea what it meant, competition clutches and 4 on the floor I understand like purring like a kitten, but "deece coop" give me a break.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2021)

The Beach Boys were also hot rod enthusiasts and the popular hot rod of the day, was a '32 Ford coupe, lowered, fenderless and usually a flat-head V-8 stuffed in it with a 4-speed manual transmission (four on the floor).
That's what they were singinging about.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The P-40 wasn't obsolete by the time the war started, because it wasn't in service until a year AFTER it started.


Pardon me. . . as an American and a Navy brat whose Pearl-Harbor-stationed dad took him to the brand-new U.S.S. Arizona Memorial when he (the brat) was not quite nine years old, "the War" started in December of 1941. I realize that there are some people who quibble about that, and I admit that they are not exactly wrong. . .but. . .

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Pardon me. . . as an American and a Navy brat whose Pearl-Harbor-stationed dad took him to the brand-new U.S.S. Arizona Memorial when he (the brat) was not quite nine years old, "the War" started in December of 1941. I realize that there are some people who quibble about that, and I admit that they are not exactly wrong. . .but. . .


"The War" for the US at least!


----------



## NTGray (Nov 18, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "The War" for the US at least!


Yeah. And even those who insist it really started on September 1, 1939, are leaving out the unpleasantness between Japan and China that started on, um, [pauses to look it up yet again] July 7 of 1937. But even that was only the beginning of active Chinese resistance to the messing around that Japan had been doing for several years before that.
And then of course there are the Russians, for whom the "Great Patriotic War" began on June 22, 1941. Who remembers that date? (Well, a lot of people on this site, but not very many ordinary Americans, many of whom were not even taught to remember December 7.) 
So it all depends upon one's point of view.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

And let's not forget that between 1 September 1939 and 2 September 1945 the Finns fought three wars, losing two to the Soviets but kicking the Germans' butt.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> And let's not forget that between 1 September 1939 and 2 September 1945 the Finns fought three wars, losing two to the Soviets but kicking the Germans' butt.


The Soviets may have "won" but I don't think it was painless...


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

For Stalin it was painless. For others, not so much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 18, 2021)

I think we can all agree that World War Two started in September, 1939, with the invasion of Poland, and subsequent declaration of war from a multitude of countries. Hence the "World" part. 
Do Americans think World War One started in April 1917, and only lasted a year and a half? Honest question, I'm really not trying to be flippant, and I apologize if it comes across that way.


NTGray said:


> Yeah. And even those who insist it really started on September 1, 1939, are leaving out the unpleasantness between Japan and China that started on, um, [pauses to look it up yet again] July 7 of 1937


That was a regional conflict, between Japan and China. The Winter and Continuation War's are also considered separate conflicts, even though they largely took place during the greater events of the second world war. This is getting off topic, sorry about that


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

For most Americans The War started on December 7, 1941. Up 'til then it was a regional conflict, "over there".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 18, 2021)

The morning the war started for the U.S., the P-40 made a good showing of itself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 18, 2021)

A little deuce coupe is a 1932 Ford coupe hot rod. You don't know what I got means the engine is quite a bit more powerful than stock.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 18, 2021)

"A Widgeon is a baby Catalina with all the issues that that entails" is about like saying the P-40 was the same as the P26. WTH, they're both fighters.
The PBY and G-44 were designed for totally different skill sets and missions and you know it. The only thing they have in common is operating from the water on occasion.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The morning the war started for the U.S., the P-40 made a good showing of itself.


If you mean the smoke of them burning on the field provided cover for the P-36s that managed to get airborne to intercept the second wave, sure.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> If you mean the smoke of them burning on the field provided cover for the P-36s that managed to get airborne to intercept the second wave, sure.











The Few Who Got Up | Defense Media Network


A history of the American pilots who were able to get in the air against the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, during Pearl Harbor.




www.defensemedianetwork.com

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

David Aiken did an article on Sanders and company engaging nine Zeros over NAS Kaneoha. Air Journal, Feb 2002? I can't find it any more but it was a great article.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> For Stalin it was painless. For others, not so much.



"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 18, 2021)

Da, comrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 19, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> For most Americans The War started on December 7, 1941. Up 'til then it was a regional conflict, "over there".








The Green bits are fighting each other 1939-1941. That's one hell of a "regional conflict"

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 19, 2021)

As an American, I'm gratified to see that Mongolia saw fit to help out after PH.

ETA: That area west-northwest of China was, I'm pretty sure, under Soviet rule at the time and should be red and not green.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 19, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> As an American, I'm gratified to see that Mongolia saw fit to help out after PH.
> 
> ETA: That area west-northwest of China was, I'm pretty sure, under Soviet rule at the time and should be red and not green.


That map is probably not specifically accurate, and its a stretch to say that the Soviet Union was Axis, then switched. They were never Axis, they just had a brief "Non-Aggression" pact with Germany.
I used the picture to illustrate that even though the US wasn't involved, it was still a global conflict. I think it does that fairly well, with Allied nations scattered across the globe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 19, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That map is probably not specifically accurate, and its a stretch to say that the Soviet Union was Axis, then switched. They were never Axis, they just had a brief "Non-Aggression" pact with Germany.
> I used the picture to illustrate that even though the US wasn't involved, it was still a global conflict. I think it does that fairly well, with Allied nations scattered across the globe


That's what happens when you use anachronistic maps to illustrate your point.


----------



## J4F-2 (Nov 19, 2021)

special ed said:


> JRF Goose - A real/genuine small amfib


True and predecessor to the Widgeon. The G-21 Gray Goose was Grumman's first multi engine airplane, first civilian airplane, first all metal airplane (except the wing covering aft the main spar and control surfaces). C/N 1001 was first flown on May 29, 1937 and a total of 345 of them were ultimately built with production ending in October, 1945 with c/n B-145. A number of them are still flying today (don't ask, even the FAA doesn't know how many). About a half dozen were converted to turbine power, of those 4 are still flying. 
The Goose was designed for wealthy New York businessmen/financiers to get from their Hampton/Connecticut homes to downtown New York City rapidly without the long drive in or rail trip. The first 13 airplanes were purchased by a syndicate of New York businessmen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 19, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That map is probably not specifically accurate, and its a stretch to say that the Soviet Union was Axis, then switched. They were never Axis, they just had a brief "Non-Aggression" pact with Germany.
> I used the picture to illustrate that even though the US wasn't involved, it was still a global conflict. I think it does that fairly well, with Allied nations scattered across the globe



Of course it was global. I'm just glad Mongolia lent us a couple of battleships while we were down.

Gotta recolor that section of Central Asia, though. It makes no sense to color most of the USSR red but paint a significant proportion of it green as if it's a separate political entity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 19, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> That's what happens when you use anachronistic maps to illustrate your point.





Thumpalumpacus said:


> Of course it was global. I'm just glad Mongolia lent us a couple of battleships while we were down.
> 
> Gotta recolor that section of Central Asia, though. It makes no sense to color most of the USSR red but paint a significant proportion of it green as if it's a separate political entity.


Disregard the last map. Use this one instead

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 19, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Disregard the last map. Use this one instead
> 
> View attachment 648764



No Piri Reis available?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> For the distances involved this "what if" Zero could have had both armour protection and sealed tanks, depending how far you want to go up the coast


The A6M's cruising speed was around 200mph, adding armor and SS tanks is not going to help you when Spitfires and Hurricanes are booming and zooming you all the way too the target and all the way back. Look at the facts, armored protected Luftwaffe aircraft that had much higher speed and overall performance couldn't survive over England, the A6M is not going too either.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Few Who Got Up | Defense Media Network
> 
> 
> A history of the American pilots who were able to get in the air against the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, during Pearl Harbor.
> ...


Good article on that morning.
My Uncle Jimmy's P-36 was at an auxiliary field, fueled but not armed and wasn't able to join in.
My Uncle Charles' ship was at Hickam and got destroyed, so he wasn't able to join in, either - though in frustration he unloaded his sidearm and then threw it at the attackers, for what it's worth.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 19, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> The A6M's cruising speed was around 200mph, adding armor and SS tanks is not going to help you when Spitfires and Hurricanes are booming and zooming you all the way too the target and all the way back. Look at the facts, armored protected Luftwaffe aircraft that had much higher speed and overall performance couldn't survive over England, the A6M is not going too either.


Was the A6M even operational in the summer of 1940?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was the A6M even operational in the summer of 1940?


In July and in limited numbers operating in China with the 12th Kokutai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 20, 2021)

Vincenzo said:


> I think that japanese actually loss only a bomber by P-26


And 3 Zeros according to what I have read and PAAC history.


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 20, 2021)

varsity07840 said:


> You’re too quick to believe the propaganda that came out of the Philippines intended to offset the disasters at Clark, Iba, et al. None of Buzz Wagner’s kills were confirmed.


I guess we will never know the full story, but it is widely accepted by people I know in the Philippine Air Force.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 20, 2021)

wingnuts said:


> And 3 Zeros according to what I have read and PAAC history.


Claims.
Not verified by Japanese records.
Japanese sources do not verify Buzz Wagner's kills,either. Does not make these guys any less heroic. Overclaiming was common in all services. A plane diving out of a fight at full throttle may appear to be smoking and burning. Exchanging shots in a head on attack might give the impression of strikes on the enemy plane with bits of debris flying off. The eye often sees what it wants to see.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 20, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Claims.
> Not verified by Japanese records.
> Japanese sources do not verify Buzz Wagner's kills,either. Does not make these guys any less heroic. Overclaiming was common in all services. A plane diving out of a fight at full throttle may appear to be smoking and burning. Exchanging shots in a head on attack might give the impression of strikes on the enemy plane with bits of debris flying off. The eye often sees what it wants to see.



Maybe, but tackling a flight of A6M Zeros in a Peashooter and surviving is an achievement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 20, 2021)

Villamor and the 6th PS confronted IJN and IJA elements with amazing ferocity in their P-26s.
Even when they were down to a single operable aircraft after 6 days of intense fighting.

And for the record, many of the kills claimed by the 6th, were corroborated by witnesses on the ground.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spindash64 (Nov 21, 2021)

I disagree with the Zeke being overrated. Late war models, perhaps, but the most important phase of the Pacific War was from 41 to 43, where it was the A6M2 vs the F4F, with shorter range operations left to A6M3 and Corsairs respectively (the former due to limited fuel compared to the M2, the latter due to unsuitability for carrier Ops initially).

The A6M2 DID have severe flaws. But what people forget is that EVERY aircraft that pushes boundaries has severe flaws. And the Zero’s tradeoff was being one of the fastest and best climbing aircraft in the PTO at the time, and contrary to popular belief, Japanese pilots tended to prefer Boom and Zoom tactics, which the Zero was capable of using against Wildcats prior to the introduction of Thatch weaving. Even this wasn’t entirely sufficient for the Wildcats to really turn the tides back, although it was a tremendous boon. What really hampered the Zero was the military using it, which used tactics that devalued rescue of experienced pilots and also left carriers vulnerable to air attack. If even ONE of these were accounted for, then there would have been more experienced personnel available during the Guadalcanal campaign, which, while insufficient to win the war, would have been a much bloodier affair and potentially encouraged the US to accept a conditional surrender to avoid a drawn out 2 front war





Instead, I’d consider the Bf 109 more overrated. Specifically the LATE model 109s. It was a fine plane, but people tend to not realize how badly over encumbered it was by the end of the war. That the RLM desperately wanted to replace it, but simply couldn’t. So they simply added bigger engines and heavier guns to the basic 109F airframe, making a plane almost impossible for a new pilot to fly. And almost all that REMAINED by the war’s end were new pilots. I’d argue that an earlier attempt to fit a 190 with a DB series engine after the greater potential of the 190 was demonstrated could have made the 1943 air campaign much more hazardous. This would still be insufficient to win the war, but it would still be better strategically than to develop more 109s in 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

Spindash64 said:


> So they simply added bigger engines and heavier guns to the basic 109F airframe, making a plane almost impossible for a new pilot to fly.


Was there a WW2 fighter that didnt get bigger engines and heavier guns through its service history?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2021)

Spindash64 said:


> contrary to popular belief, Japanese pilots tended to prefer Boom and Zoom tactics, which the Zero was capable of using against Wildcats prior to the introduction of Thatch weaving.
> 
> 
> Spindash64 said:
> ...


Do you have a reference for that? From the "Bloody Shambles" volumes, quite the opposite is indicated.

Quote from Saburo Sakai (Samurai)

_"For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander's plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman's team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety."_

The Wildcat (along with other aircraft) were able to achieve aerial superiority over Guadalcanal until other aircraft like the F6F and F4U became operational. I think the rest is history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 21, 2021)

Lundstrom.
Wildcats were able to establish air superiority over Guadalcanal because they were defending their own airspace. The Japanese were fighting at the end of their operational range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was the A6M even operational in the summer of 1940?


No but then it wasnt made in Germany anyway. Germany had engines of similar power output in 1940 and could have produced a similar design, if the bosses of the LW saw a need for such a plane. They didnt because no one saw a need for it, after all France wouldnt fall in 10 weeks in 1940, would they?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Was there a WW2 fighter that didnt get bigger engines and heavier guns through its service history?


P-39?
For real, the P-39?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> P-39?


You are being seduced by the dark side of the forum, look at pictures of the Gloster Gamecock before you fall into the thread of darkness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 21, 2021)

Thank you, Oh Wise One.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Thank you, Oh Wise One.


Think nothing of it we all have moments of weakness with a P-39.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 21, 2021)

Not me. I remember building one as a kid. Didn't see the point of installing the nose armor, and that thing just sat on it's tail. Live and learn.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Not me. I remember building one as a kid. Didn't see the point of installing the nose armor, and that thing just sat on it's tail. Live and learn.


You put the roundels in the wrong place?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 21, 2021)

No. It was the Monogram kit with Russian markings.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> No. It was the Monogram kit with Russian markings.


Use of stars instead of roundels was a bad mistake, that's your CoG issue starting, right there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 21, 2021)

Rookie mistake.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 21, 2021)

Easy, now!
I was just a kid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Easy, now!
> I was just a kid.


We've all been there, no worries.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 22, 2021)

I know hindsight is 20/20, but omitting the IFF would have easily corrected the CoG issue.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I know hindsight is 20/20, but omitting the IFF would have easily corrected the CoG issue



"Look, we've been through this before..."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 22, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> "Look, we've been through this before..."


Yes, we have.

Yes we have, indeed...


----------



## GregP (Nov 22, 2021)

You have to use the heavy paint up front and the lighter paint (sugar and lead-free, no calories or saturated fat) at the rear. That way, it sort of works out ... as long as you don't shoot any of the ammunition.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spindash64 (Nov 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Was there a WW2 fighter that didnt get bigger engines and heavier guns through its service history?


Not particularly, but the key difference is that most aircraft could support the extra weight and weren’t so limited in gear span AND in stall speed as to be a nightmare to land. The Spitfire was also spindly, but the elliptical wing worked much better for the low and slow landing and takeoff, and the takeoff process itself was much less complex.

The 109 was so tightly designed that there was no way to really make a better landing gear arrangement without creating a whole new plane. That’s part of why the Germans tried to create both the Me 309 and the Me 209 II, although both ultimately failed to meet required performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 26, 2021)

Spindash64 said:


> Not particularly, but the key difference is that most aircraft could support the extra weight and weren’t so limited in gear span AND in stall speed as to be a nightmare to land. The Spitfire was also spindly, but the elliptical wing worked much better for the low and slow landing and takeoff, and the takeoff process itself was much less complex.
> 
> The 109 was so tightly designed that there was no way to really make a better landing gear arrangement without creating a whole new plane. That’s part of why the Germans tried to create both the Me 309 and the Me 209 II, although both ultimately failed to meet required performance.


I think the same could be said for the Spitfire, which had approx the same gear span and was also a handful to take off and land.


----------



## GregP (Nov 26, 2021)

The Spitfire was a handful to take off and land, but not from side-to-side rocking or a tendency to swing heavily. It was much more due to the gear being positioned aft enough so that the nose was very heavy (tail was light?) and it was easy to nose over after the 2-stage Merlins and, particularly, the Griffons were installed. Sure, it did swing a bit on takeoff, but the rudder could compensate much better than the Bf 109 rudder at low speeds.

The Griffon Spits were said to be VERY easy to stand on the nose during braking. That was confirmed by a modern Spitfire MK XIV pilot at the museum one day when I asked ... very light tail in 3-point attitude.

The Bf 109 was very easy to rock side-to-side and drag a wingtip. The rudder wasn't overly effective at low speeds. So, the brakes were used to stay as straight as possible, if that's what you wanted to do. Many Bf 109 pilots simply lined up 35° from the intended takeoff heading and let it swing if they had the room to do so. They mostly flew from farmer's fields, so there was usually room by starting at one corner. Modern Bf 109 pilots who fly from grass have nice straight LONG, manicured runways, even if they aren't all exactly level. In the war, if you had to get off in a farmer's field length, you didn't have room to feed in the throttle gradually, you had to accelerate and get to flying speed quickly to clear the hedgerows. I'm thinking front-line improvised airfields, not actually military aerodromes. If the runway was NOT a farmer's field, then they COULD stay straight and take more room to get airborne.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 26, 2021)

Spindash64 said:


> Not particularly, but the key difference is that most aircraft could support the extra weight and weren’t so limited in gear span AND in stall speed as to be a nightmare to land. The Spitfire was also spindly, but the elliptical wing worked much better for the low and slow landing and takeoff, and the takeoff process itself was much less complex.



Spitfire's wing was with considerably greater area, about 1/3rd greater. Same generation Spitfire and Bf 109 were close wrt. weight (bar the 'Griffon Spitfires'), so the wing loading of the Spitfire was much providing an improvement in low-speed handling vs. the Bf 109.



Spindash64 said:


> The 109 was so tightly designed that there was no way to really make a better landing gear arrangement without creating a whole new plane. That’s part of why the Germans tried to create both the Me 309 and the Me 209 II, although both ultimately failed to meet required performance.



Pretty much.
We can recall that Bf 109 started it's life with engine of ~450 kg that made under 700 HP, armament being 2 LMGs. Spitfire started it's life with ~650 kg engine that did mor than 1000 HP, A/C being designed for 8 LMGs. Different inputs led to different aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

GregP said:


> Modern Bf 109 pilots who fly from grass have nice straight LONG, manicured runways, even if they aren't all exactly level


I have heard that you should ALWAYS use grass for a 109, as the plane is much trickier on pavement. Does the museum operate any 109's?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 26, 2021)

About the wing loading, the Bf 109 had slats that opened when the airflow stalled, and that kept the airflow attached over the ailerons to retain roll control and also lowered the stall speed a bit. The slats didn't make up for anything at higher speeds unless the airflow started to stall, and then the slats would open, sometimes asymmetrically, depending on how coordinated the aircraft was at the time. It didn't allow the Bf 109 to turn with a Spitfire that was well-flown, but it DID allow the German pilot to fly right at the edge of a stall with no fear of losing aileron control in a stall. If the Spitfire pilot wasn't experienced, the Bf 109 could seem to turn right with it and maybe even inside it.

Perhaps this is where the stories of Spitfires being out-turned originated ... with German veterans out-turning Spitfire rookies, or at least less-experienced pilots. These two airplanes were close enough to one another in capability that the pilot could make a huge difference, and no doubt often did just that.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think the same could be said for the Spitfire, which had approx the same gear span and was also a handful to take off and land.


Molders stated that in his opinion both the Spitfire and Hurricane were childishly easy to take off and land compared to the 109 which he described as being fiendish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

