A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45

[Schweik]

. If we provide the F4F pilots with Sea Hurricanes/Seafires and put them into the same tactical circumstances they have to do better.

Ah, no they don't. That is your opinion - don't confuse it or conflate it with facts.

S

 

[Schweik]

The Merlin 32 would have been far better for low altitude combat, but the Merlin 46 was used by the RAAF because they wanted to counter high altitude IJ bombing raids and the Merlin 46 had a FTH of ~22k ft @ 9lb boost:

(snip)

and ETO Spitfire V pilots were encouraged to use it when encountering the Fw190 and 109F/G

Boost / overboosting is certainly an issue - again something which was frequently employed against Zeros by pilots flying all kinds of Allied fighters.

S

 

[pinsog]

Definitely do not agree with that. The Spit may not have had sufficient dive acceleration but probably had 100 mph superior dive speed which was definitely tactically significant and without a doubt helped prevent getting shot.

It may not save you if the enemy plane is right behind you already shooting (in which case other things also have to be done) but if you have any distance a dive can quickly allow you to extend and separate. The low maximum dive speed of A6M and Ki 43 was their main tactical flaw - more significant arguably than the (original) lack of armor or self sealing tanks. The Ki-43 may not have had the same problem as the A6M with stiffening control surfaces but was considerably more fragile and vulnerable pulling out of dives, several Ki-43s shed their wings pulling out of dives in fact and this was widely known among JAAF fighter pilots.

This i.e. (Split S and strait down) is in fact the main escape maneuver they used with almost all Allied fighters against Ki -43 or A6M- the high speed climb wasn't always possible though it was a nice option to have if you had it. The only fighter that pretty much strictly used high speed climbs was the P-38 because of the problems they had with a power dive (especially the early types before the dive brakes)

S

I get what your saying, but initial acceleration of Spit V over Zero, according to the test, wasn't enough to keep you from getting shot down before you drew out of range. 'The main escape maneuver they used with almost all allied fighters against KI43 or Zero" I agree 100% but aside from a few Spits in Australia and Hurricanes in Burma most allied fighters were USA and USA fighters with few exceptions, climbed worse but dropped like a rock. P39, P40, P47, P51, Hellcat Corsair were all great divers, P38 dived good against Japanese (not against Germans at high altitude) Also, except for P39 with engine in back, and P51, the other 4 fighters listed were tough and could absorb a few strikes and still get away

 

[Schweik]

I get what your saying, but initial acceleration of Spit V over Zero, according to the test, wasn't enough to keep you from getting shot down before you drew out of range. 'The main escape maneuver they used with almost all allied fighters against KI43 or Zero" I agree 100% but aside from a few Spits in Australia and Hurricanes in Burma most allied fighters were USA and USA fighters with few exceptions, climbed worse but dropped like a rock. P39, P40, P47, P51, Hellcat Corsair were all great divers, P38 dived good against Japanese (not against Germans at high altitude) Also, except for P39 with engine in back, and P51, the other 4 fighters listed were tough and could absorb a few strikes and still get away

I suspect they may not have been pushing the Spits to the max, because the Spitfire Mk V has an excellent power to mass ratio of about 0.21* whereas the A6M2 has a ratio of about 0.18. The Spit is also much more streamlined and has shorter wings (i.e. less drag).

Even if you can outdive by a lot though, it won't save you if the other aircraft is right behind you. What might save you is for example nosing over if your opponent has an engine that floods in negative G (I think this was a problem both for the Spit V and the A6M though) or else you have to sideslip / skid, roll and twist etc. either until they overshoot or you can extend. These tactics did seem to work so long as the defending pilot knows he is being attacked and has sufficient E to maneuver.

In the case of a Spitfire vs. an A6M, a Split S followed by a full power, vertical dive downward would mean reaching a speed that the A6M could not safely follow in a matter of just a few seconds... maybe 20 seconds? Still more than long enough to get shot down if you weren't taking measures to avoid being hit (skidding etc.) but not that long.

I remember recently reading (but can't remember where precisely) some US officer noting that A6Ms rarely followed Allied fighters in a steep dive even though they could have up to a point. I'm pretty confident a Spit could do this, the more pertinent question for this thread though would be could a Hurricane do it.

S

 

[pinsog]

 

[RCAFson]

Below 20,000, well below 15,000, the P40 could reasonably fight with a Zero, but the P40 with any kind of altitude could dive away. The Spit V vs P40E dogfight test showed that the P40E could disengage from the Spit V at will by diving.

Nonsense. No P-40 pilot would have thought that and at low altitude diving away wasn't much of an option. P-40 successes were mainly due to B'nZ tactics but remember the P-40 rarely fought the A6M3.

 

[pinsog]

 

[RCAFson]

View attachment 497749

Those speeds confirm that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 would gain ~20mph at 16K ft using overboost and it's climb rate would increase considerably as well.

 

[RCAFson]

View attachment 497752

So a P-40E would do better? Not likely.

 

[pinsog]

 

[Schweik]

View attachment 497749

Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.

I do not however think that 290 kts / 333 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 at any altitude was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:

"P-40K-1 vs. Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly."

I'm pretty sure the Spit V had better acceleration than the P-40K*. More importantly, they both had better acceleration than the A6M going strait down at full power.

S

* also suspect the A6M in that test may not have been operating at full capacity either

 

[pinsog]

Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.

I do not however think that 290 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:

"P-40K-1 vs. Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly."

I'm pretty sure the Spit V had better acceleration than the P-40K*. More importantly, they both had better acceleration than the A6M going strait down at full power.

S

* also suspect the A6M in that test may not have been operating at full capacity either

290 knots not mph

 

[RCAFson]

Ah, no they don't. That is your opinion - don't confuse it or conflate it with facts.

S

You can calculate the wing loading and power to weight ratios as easily as I can. Combine that with superior roll rates and the F4F-4 is completely outperformed. There's nothing that the F4F-4 can do better than a Hurricane/Spitfire or Sea Hurricane/Seafire with the exception of better cockpit, over the nose, visibility compared to the Spitfire/Seafire but not the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane.

This is from Nimitiz via Lundstrom (Black shoe carrier admiral)

Another aspect of the attack that proved inadequate was
fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s represented no improvement
over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be carried. He echoed
the call of Halsey and others of the "urgent necessity" for detachable fuel tanks
to increase their effective attack radius beyond 175 miles. Spruance and
Browning rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior" in comparison with the
nimble Japanese Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the
"extreme and apparently increased superiorty performance of 0 fighters" was
mitigated only by the vulnerabilty of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of
the U.S. Navy fighter pilots, "Overall results have been bad and will be serious
and polentialy decisive with improvement that must be expected in enemy
tactics." Remarkably, he called for army Curtiss P-40F Warhawk fighters to
replace navy F4F Widcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-40F "or
comparable type" be tested for carrier suitability. In the meantime the F4F-4s
must be lightened, and their ammunition supply increased even should that
require reverting to four guns in place af sx. The swift introduction of the Vought
FAV-1 Corsair fighter was an "absolute prionly." Thus after Midway the tap fleet
commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the effectiveness
of the basic U.S. carer fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision.?

There's no doubt that Wildcat pilots and Nimitz would have jumped at the chance to deploy Sea Hurricanes and/or Seafires if they had been available.

 

[Schweik]

290 knots not mph

My bad - however that is 333 mph so my point still holds.

Will edit post

 

[pinsog]

My bad - however that is 333 mph so my point still holds.

Will edit post

Also, test was against clip winged A6M-3 not A6M-2

The actual top speed of the Zero is also highly debated. I've seen 330 mph to as high as 345 mph.

 

[Kevin J]

The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30's and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I'm glad they didn't use KI43's instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)

US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range

Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.

The USN pilots were trained to fly all types pre-war, they were an elite force and the results they got showed it. The Brits, well everyone got called up or volunteered so that they could get to do what they wanted too, and the results showed. The Commonwealth was a volunteers only set up, you can look at the results they got whether in the RAF or their own units, they were always better.

Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.

I do not however think that 290 kts / 333 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 at any altitude was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:

"P-40K-1 vs. Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly."

I'm pretty sure the Spit V had better acceleration than the P-40K*. More importantly, they both had better acceleration than the A6M going strait down at full power.

S

* also suspect the A6M in that test may not have been operating at full capacity either

Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
The Vokes tropical filter reduced the speed of a Spitfire Vb to 354 mph tops with a Merlin 45, the RAAF Spitfire Vc had a Merlin 46 and extra bulges on its wings for an extra two 20 mm cannon, so it would have been slower by about 5 mph, but at a greater height. 333 mph at 15000 ft is probably about right.

 

[Schweik]

Also, test was against clip winged A6M-3 not A6M-2

Ok fair enough but the tested speed on the A6M3 doesn't appear to be better. This test showed a max of 310 mph TAS, though better altitude performance than the A6M2.

Hamp Performance Test

This doc says 346 mph at ~22,000 feet but that's still considerably lower than the Spit V at 375 mph TAS at 20,000.

My guess is that they were having trouble with that Spit for one reason or another on that particular day. May also have something to do with why they had so much trouble initially at Darwin.

S

 

[pinsog]

Ok fair enough but the tested speed on the A6M3 doesn't appear to be better. This test showed a max of 310 mph TAS, though better altitude performance than the A6M2.

Hamp Performance Test

This doc says 346 mph at ~22,000 feet but that's still considerably lower than the Spit V at 375 mph TAS at 20,000.

My guess is that they were having trouble with that Spit for one reason or another on that particular day. May also have something to do with why they had so much trouble initially at Darwin.

S

No, you hit the nail on the head in previous post, it was a tropical Spitfire, that explains lower performance. But a Spitfire can't operate in primitive conditions without Tropical setup

 

[Schweik]

You can calculate the wing loading and power to weight ratios as easily as I can. Combine that with superior roll rates and the F4F-4 is completely outperformed. There's nothing that the F4F-4 can do better than a Hurricane/Spitfire or Sea Hurricane/Seafire with the exception of better cockpit, over the nose, visibility compared to the Spitfire/Seafire but not the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane.

Spitfire Seafire is a very different beast altogether than a Hurricane. Please don't conflate the arguments.

For the record Spitfire or Seafire > Wildcat / Martlet, with the exception of range,. Range of course is important for naval aircraft. But in all other respects the Spitfire is better.

Hurricane, I'm nowhere near convinced.

What is the maximum dive speed of the Hurricane compared to the Wildcat?

S

 

[Kevin J]

No, you hit the nail on the head in previous post, it was a tropical Spitfire, that explains lower performance. But a Spitfire can't operate in primitive conditions without Tropical setup

They had of course come direct from the UK, which meant the Vokes which also carried extra oil for the engine when carrying a 90 gal ferry tank. In the Med, the Aboukir tropical filter was developed that only caused a 5 mph loss in top speed.