Best Fighter in the Pacific and CBI Theaters in 1942

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Joe

Hi Jamf,

>What do you use for the diagrams?

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

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

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

Joe

Hi Tomo,

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Jamf,

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

JoeB said:

But in a number of earlier encounters in Philippines and Dutch East Indies small B-17(and LB-30/B-24) formations suffered badly at the hands of Zeroes. The bomber claims to have downed Zeroes were vastly exaggerated; Zeroes never suffered really heavy losses attacking B-17's in 1942. And the Zero claims against the bombers were sometimes actually understated, because few of the B-17's crashed right then and there, they *were* relatively tough, but many never made it back to base.

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

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

Joe

Click to expand...

The Zero 20mm were 'effective'

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

drgondog said:

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

Click to expand...

I think that sums it up very well.

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

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

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

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

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

drgondog said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Joe

HoHun said:

Hi Jamf,

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

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

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

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

A shame it doesn't include the 38.

JAMF said:

A shame it doesn't include the 38.

Click to expand...

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

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Wait untill Poll #2.

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

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

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Hi Jamf,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

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

JoeB said:

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

My comments were solely about PI and Java campaigns. All of the ~ 150+ B-17s sent to Pacific before December 7,1941 were B-17C/D with C's upgraded to D's. You are right that the self sealing tanks were introduced earlier - actually the C IIRC. The 19th BG took B-17C/D's to PI and D/E spares were drawn from 5th and 11th (i am pretty sure but not 100% on this) at Hawaii to backfill attrition in DEI. The campaign only lasted two months before withdrawal. Joe Braugher's site shows about same number C/D's lost in Java as E's.

The first B-17E equipped Group was the 7th BG deployed to Hawaii in December with first squadron arriving on December 7. These 30+ were deployed to Australia and then to Java in mid January 1942 where they joined 19th BG. Most of the B-17E's in theatre in Java left for India in March - with the 7th. By that time the 19th was also receiving E's as well as 5th and 11th.

In all the 5th, 7th, 11 and 19th were the only B-17 Groups in the PTO during PI and Java campaigns but only 30+ of the force that went to Java in January were E's.

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

The B-17 was possibly a 'failure' until the E was produced. The classic Ball replaced the Bendix remote about 1/5 into the total production B-17E run but probably didn't get to PTO until mid year - the rest were headed for Europe.

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

Joe

Click to expand...

agreed

Rhetorical question for all of you:

"WHo thinks the Wildcat was overrated"?

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

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

syscom3 said:

Rhetorical question for all of you:

"WHo thinks the Wildcat was overrated"?

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

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

Click to expand...

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