Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In theory yesbut 1 v 1 air combat can be a rock-paper-scissors game. The RAAF test quoted earlier in this thread says the Spit.V(trop) they used in Australia had no great advantages over the tested A6M3 model 32 below 20,000ft.
The short range of the Spitfire was its biggest problem, In Burma the long range US airfield raids by P-51 and P-38's in early 1944 gave the JAAF no respite. The Beaufighter had the range to make the same long range raids but does not seem to have been used much for that?
Once read a quote from a RAF pilot who said" if the Germans had been flying A6ms in the Battle of Britain we'd all be speaking German right now". While one can agree or disagree with his vision of the outcome under such a scenario it makes the point about how critical range can be for many missions.Over the course of the Darwin raids, the Japanese shot down 28 Spitfires confirmed by the pilots that in fact got shot down. They lost according to their own records, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that they ran out of fuel over their own territory. They knocked down a few bombers as well but over all they lost more than they knocked down. That is not a good record for an interceptor and should prove e that the Zero was not a 2nd line fighter. At the time of those raids in 1942, there was not a fighter in the world that could have flown that mission, I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.
My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way. Ok, they got drop tanks, congrats you can each cross a 20 mile body of water to do battle now. The Zero could probably have flown from Berlin and fought over the channel and returned but hey, its only a 2nd rate fighter.
So your proving the British and Germans could have escorted a group of medium bombers 500 miles one way and defended them over Darwin from Spitfires and P40's with......2 more medium bombers. Both the Me410 and the Beaufighter weigh more when empty than a P38 weighed loaded without drop tanks. An Me410 weighed 16,574 pounds empty and a Beaufighter weighed 15,592 pounds empty. Both weighed over 20,000 when loaded. The Beaufighter was 80-100 miles per hour slower than a P38. It was 20-30 mph slower than the Spitfire V at Darwin and your plan is to climb above the Spitfire and Boom and Zoom him??? This just keeps getting better. When a Spitfire gets behind a Beafighter or the Beaufighter gets down below 15,000 feet where a P40 or P39 works well he is done. He can't outrun them and he sure can't out maneuver them
I said, "Nothing the British or Germans had during the war could have flow that mission" and you said "except the Me410, Beaufighter, Mosquito, P38, P51 or P47"
Last I checked the P38, P51, and P47 were not British or German. It has also been proven by the British themselves that the Mosquito was no match for a single engine fighter in one on one combat during the daylight. Yes if you catch someone napping or distracted you can knock him down with a pass from a plane like a Me410, Beaufighter or Mossie, but in a prolonged combat if you don't have a big speed advantage you are toast.
I agree that it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome of the battle imho but who knows for sure. I do think it would have made things alot tougher for the Brits though. I don't see how it couldn't.On the disagree side the losses of Zeros over England in 1940 would have been horrendous. However successful they may have been in air to air combat dishing it out their inability to survive minor damage may very well have resulted in as high or higher operational losses than the 109. British AA in 1940 being a lot more 'active' than the AA in the far east or Darwin.
A few holes in the unprotected tanks and the Zero doesn't make it back across the channel.
Of course this assumes the needed time machine to get 1942 Zeros over England in 1940
Why, do you think the pilot said "Hey, we're running out of gas", only for the plane itself to force him to fly on? No, running out of fuel is a pilot error. If you are referring to 2nd May 1943, the Spits shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spits in the actual air combat, then five Spits then made forced landings due to running out of fuel. They had used too much from the long climb followed by dogfighting with the Zeros. On the plus side, the majority of the Spits that did run out of fuel were repaired and returned to service. I can find only two Spitfires at Darwin that ran out of fuel and were too badly damaged to be repaired. So, despite pilot error, the long-term effect on the defences was small. After the 2nd May 1943, the Spits carried drop-tanks and avoided dogfighting, which chewed up fuel, and were so effective that the Japanese made their last major raid on 6th July 1943, and abandoned attacks on Darwin by November 1943.
Your post said neither side could fly far over the Channel without running out of fuel. My reply was not intended to imply either the Spit nor the ME109 could have flown 500 miles, had a combat and then returned, it was to fill in the gaps in your knowledge regarding both Luftwaffe and RAF range capabilities by 1942.
And there were how many P-38s, P-47s or P-51s at Darwin? The Allied defence at Darwin was tropicalized Spitfire Vs and P-40Es. The Me410 could outrun both with 385mph top speed, could fly higher than the P-40 could, and was excellent for boom'n'zoom tactics. It had the firepower to knock either down in a single pass, and the dive capability to then speed out of range to make a safe recovery, necessary given its relatively slow climb rate (though still better than the P-40E). The problem for the Me410 as an escort was there simply was no Luftwaffe role as long-range escort by 1942. I was also faster than the Zero, by quite a margin, and had the advantage of a rear-gunner to warn the pilot of attacks from the rear. It could even have carried bombs to Darwin, dropped them and engaged or evaded the Spitfires at will. Did the Zeros carry bombs to Darwin?
Beaufighters shot down ME109s and ME110s on day sweeps over the Med and Desert in 1942, both of which out-perform the Zero. The Beau II with Merlins would also have had the altitude performance to come in above the climbing Spit Vs (and well above the P-40Es), allowing them to position for diving attacks out of the Sun. Maybe you should think more about the scenario before passing such quick judgement? To be successful, an escort does not need to shoot down every enemy interceptor, it just has to disrupt them enough to keep them from attacking the bombers. Having said that, any Spit V or P-40E that got in the way of a diving Beau would have been shredded by the Beau's cannons.
I didn't include them because there were none at Darwin.
It didn't whip anything, the RAAF pilots stupidly ran out of fuel. A properly flown Spitfire V Trop was more than capable of besting a Zero, and the Spit V Trop was pretty much second-rate by mid-1942, let alone by the time of the Darwin raids in 1943. Please also note that the Spits were tasked with shooting down the bombers, not the Zeros, and shot down more Japanese aircraft than were lost in the defence of Darwin.
Except for the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito, and the P-38 at the time, and planes like the P-51B/D or P-47N much, much, much better later in the War.
You're on your period? That does explain a lot.
I see Schweik is still living trying to pretend a P-40 of any version was better than a Spitfire VIII/IX.
You're on your period? That does explain a lot.
Well maybe you could start by acknowledging some facts. Those Zero's you talk about were factory new aircraft flown by experienced pilots as noted in Darwin Spitfires, the MkV's they fought against were worn out converted MkII's that had corroded cooling systems and faulty propeller CSU that caused the engines to fail flown by less experienced pilots, again as noted in Darwin Spitfires, running out of fuel was caused by Clive Caldwell wanting all the planes to form up as per Mallory's ''big wing'' which caused them to fly around in circles wasting time and fuel and when they finally set off it was a stern chase pursuit which wasted what little fuel they had, the same thing that happened in the BoB and again noted in Darwin Spitfires. Lastly the MkV's had Merlin 46 engines that had 500Hp less than the 45 had at 20,000ft, the most common height the Japanese attacked from, as per Shortround6's post on the subject, the result was the MkV's had inferior performance to a MkII, RAAF tests showed the MkV's, A6M and P40's all maxed out around 320-330mph, the MkV's are giving away 45mph and loss of overall performance to the Zero and P40 by having the wrong engine. I'm not a fan of the Zero, it is one plane I would not want to go to war in, especially if I was up against 1941-42 era European aircraft.
Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.Seriously?
Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.
The Beau could outrun all versions at sea level.I'd say you'd have to balance the range limits with performance and speed etc. How was the Beaufighters record against Zeroes? Could a Beau outrun a zero at low altitude?
Only if they both started low.Could a Beau outrun a zero at low altitude
Seriously?
The RAF had 70 Beaufighter aces.The Beau increasingly looks like one of the unsung heroes of WW2.
There's a government website in Canberra that goes into details for the RAAF. What aircraft shot down what Japanese planes. It's on my not working laptop, the transformer wire is broke. Try a Google search.also includes RNZAF claims. For the RAF I've only found stuff on Wikipedia. You could try a search on BAE Systems Bristol Beaufighter. They might have some useful links.That is quite impressive, especially since I'm sure RAAF had a good number of Beaufighter aces as well as did the USAAF (or was it the Navy). But I'd like to know a bit more. What Theaters, how many night fighting vs. daytime claims, what kind of targets (i.e., how many Zeros and Bf 109s vs. how many H6Ks and Ar 196s) and how many losses vs. how many claims. Do you have any of that data?