Best fighter in the world in 1940? Spitfire, 109, Zero, or something else

[RCAFson]

What are the climb rates for the 3 aircraft?

The A6M1? or the A6M2-11? The A6M1 was the only variant that would have been available for the BoB and it only has a 750hp engine.

If we select the A6M2-11, then we should be comparing it to the Hurricane IIa, which became available in Aug 1940 and Spitfire II which entered squadron service in Aug 1940:

Hurricane IIa:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-climb.jpg
so 20k ft in 8.5min
However, this graph is for a Hurricane IIB at 7330lbs. A IIA at 6800-7000lb would probably make 20k in 7.5-7.7 minutes, and you can see how an increase to 8100lb reduce the ckimb rate.
Spitfire II:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p7280climb.gif
so 20K in 7 to 7.7 mins


This is a Spit Vc (at 7000lb - 850lb more than a Spit II) climb rate at 16lb boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878climb.gif
note how the time to 20k ft drops from 7.7 to 6.15min, and both the Spit II and Hurricane II would show similar increases in performance.

A6M2-21:

Most sources state about 7.7min to 20k ft.

however this RAAF report tests the A6M3-32 variant:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf
and it shows a clmb to 20k ft in 6.84 min using military power (5min rating) and 8.11 using continuous power. Max climb rate at Mil power = 3410fpm versus about 3500 for the Hurricane and ~3700 for the Spit II. However this model had a more powerful engine than the A6M2-11 and max climb rate is about 15% better than the A6M2-11 at SL. Time to 20K ft might be a minute better than the A6M2-11

 

[pinsog]

Fuel on the ground does no good when your shortlegged point defense interceptor runs out of gas while flying CAP and has to land, while long legged fighter patrols out over the channel waiting for just such an event to occur and then comes in strafing.The Germans with A6M's, in effect, could have done to the British what the Americans did to the ME262, wait until they run out of gas and shoot them down while they're landing or strafe them on the ground.

 

[RCAFson]

So they orbit out over the channel until the Brits run out of fuel and then go in. The allies did the same thing to the Germans later in the war by zigzagging bomber formations so the Germans wouldn't know which target was going to be hit. Interceptors with such short range were launched, bombers zigged, fighters landed for fuel, bombers zagged, interceptors were caught on the ground. Zero's orbit over channel, will they attack? Launch fighters, wait Zero's leaving, wait there back, wait there leaving. Hurricanes and Spits run out of fuel, land, here come Zero's in strafing field. 4 times the range gives you lots of options.

The UK developed the CH radar system to permit fighters to stay on the ground until the enemy actually appeared over UK airspace. Even at 250mph it still takes 7 min to cover 30 miles.

 

[pinsog]

Interesting, that the Hurricane slightly outclimbed the Zero. Spitfire, no suprise. So, would it be fair to say the Hurricanes performance was virtually identical to the A6M2 except for low speed turning?

 

[claidemore]

So they orbit out over the channel until the Brits run out of fuel and then go in. The allies did the same thing to the Germans later in the war by zigzagging bomber formations so the Germans wouldn't know which target was going to be hit. Interceptors with such short range were launched, bombers zigged, fighters landed for fuel, bombers zagged, interceptors were caught on the ground. Zero's orbit over channel, will they attack? Launch fighters, wait Zero's leaving, wait there back, wait there leaving. Hurricanes and Spits run out of fuel, land, here come Zero's in strafing field. 4 times the range gives you lots of options.

You don't fly CAP with short legged interceptors. The cat and mouse game scenario you suggest would work.... once.
It was not within the strategy of Dowding to chase fighters over the channel anyways, the targets were the bombers. Zeros would still have to escort the bombers.

 

[pinsog]

Ok. So they faint in to get the Brits off the ground and then back out over the channel. Brits either give chase, land, or orbit over their field. A6M has enough range to keep them in the air until they really do have to land, or come in when they are low on fuel and HAVE to commit to combat when they really don't have the fuel. Then when they're out of fuelin the middle of the fight you shoot them down in the landing pattern. Justlike US pilots did to ME262's.

 

[RCAFson]

Interesting, that the Hurricane slightly outclimbed the Zero. Spitfire, no suprise. So, would it be fair to say the Hurricanes performance was virtually identical to the A6M2 except for low speed turning?

I would say that.

I corrected my earlier post above and the RAAF actually tested an A6m3-32 with a much more powerful engine than the A6M2-11.

 

[RCAFson]

Ok. So they faint in to get the Brits off the ground and then back out over the channel. Brits either give chase, land, or orbit over their field. A6M has enough range to keep them in the air until they really do have to land, or come in when they are low on fuel and HAVE to commit to combat when they really don't have the fuel. Then when they're out of fuelin the middle of the fight you shoot them down in the landing pattern. Justlike US pilots did to ME262's.

The UK also had the Observer Corp. The Luftwaffe tried fighter sweeps and after the 1st one, the RAF just stayed on the ground, unless bombers were in the formation.

 

[claidemore]

pinsog: It won't work, because the British fighters are not worried about shooting down the Zeros, they want to shoot down the Ju88's, Do17s and He111's. The 109 gave the RAF a lot of trouble when they would wait high above the bombers and dive on the attacking Spits and Hurris. The 109s good dive speed was difficult to deal with. The Zero on the other hand does not have that dive ability, only dogfighting ability. Bombers are going to suffer heavily when escorted by Zeros (as they generally did in the PTO).
Dowding rarely sent up all his fighters, so if the Zeros wait over the channel, they will get intercepted piecemeal by one squadron after another, there will always (nearly always) be fresh fully fueled squadrons waiting for the primary targets, the bombers.

The allied tactics against Me262's were used because they were up against a small number of jets with a huge speed advantage. That would not be as effective against 600+ RAF fighters scattered over several airfields. The bombing campaign against the RAF fighter stations was effective, and would still be the way to negate RAF fighter strength rather than straffing from Zero fighters.

 

[pinsog]

I was typing my last post when yours came through. Radar would have definately helped, did definately help, but the Germans had radar late in the war and it didn't protect their 262's in the landing pattern short on fuel. Zero's would also have been able to cover the entire British isles, nowhere would have been safe.

Do you think the Hurricane had the power to keep its speed up above 250mph while fighting the Zero? I think the Spitfire had the ability to energy fight the Zero and win, provided the pilots knew thats what they needed to do. I don't think the Hurricane had the power. Your opinion?

 

[pinsog]

Claidemore RCAFson: You guys might be right. The whole thing would probably depend on who adapted first/best to the others tactics.

One more question since you have attempted to shoot down(pun?) my A6M theory(I'm not completely convinced but you both have some good arguments): If the 109 had the range of the A6M, would the Germans have won the battle?

 

[RCAFson]

I was typing my last post when yours came through. Radar would have definately helped, did definately help, but the Germans had radar late in the war and it didn't protect their 262's in the landing pattern short on fuel. Zero's would also have been able to cover the entire British isles, nowhere would have been safe.

Do you think the Hurricane had the power to keep its speed up above 250mph while fighting the Zero? I think the Spitfire had the ability to energy fight the Zero and win, provided the pilots knew thats what they needed to do. I don't think the Hurricane had the power. Your opinion?

The Hurricane had a very good power to weight ratio by early war standards. The thick wing created drag but also lots of lift. It should be able to accelerate away from a Zero in a dive (and apparently the early Zero's engine also cut out with negative G). Also there are lots of combat reports of Hurricanes catching 109s while using over boost. 250mph should be possible in a Hurricane using something like 70% power so I suspect it was possible to maintain that speed through most combat manoeuvres at full throttle.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think they would have won, but the battle would have been more costly for the British.

Drop tanks would have helped the Germans a lot, but a fighter with the range of the Zero on internal fuel would have meant somewhat less performance than the historical 109 and so changed the exchange rate a bit in favor of the British once combat is joined. Might have traded fighters losses for bomber losses.

 

[pinsog]

RCAFson: Interesting. Then why did it do sopoorly against the Zero? Do you think most of the problem was pilot inexperience? Do you think the Hurricane in the hands of the US Navy and US Marines would have done well against the Zero?

 

[RCAFson]

RCAFson: Interesting. Then why did it do sopoorly against the Zero? Do you think most of the problem was pilot inexperience? Do you think the Hurricane in the hands of the US Navy and US Marines would have done well against the Zero?

Did the Hurricane perform poorly against the Zero, or was it simply outnumbered and caught in tactically unfavourable situations? We have seen how the experience of the Hurricanes on Malta differed from that of the F4Fs at Henderson. If the F4F-4 pilots at Henderson were given the Hurricane IIa, for example, why would they perform more poorly, if they were flying a faster, faster climbing, aircraft that was probably more manoeuvrable and was better suited to rough field operations? There is every reason to assume that the Hurricane IIa would do better, using exactly the same tactics as the USN/USMC pilots were using.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did the Hurricane perform poorly against the Zero, or was it simply outnumbered and caught in tactically unfavourable situations? We have seen how the experience of the Hurricanes on Malta differed from that of the F4Fs at Henderson. If the F4F-4 pilots at Henderson were given the Hurricane IIa, for example, why would they perform more poorly, if they were flying a faster, faster climbing, aircraft that was probably more manoeuvrable and was better suited to rough field operations?

They also had tactics down on how to deal with the Zero, but at the same time they just dove past the fighters to take on the bombers which was the primary target.

 

[pinsog]

Did the Hurricane perform poorly against the Zero, or was it simply outnumbered and caught in tactically unfavourable situations? We have seen how the experience of the Hurricanes on Malta differed from that of the F4Fs at Henderson. If the F4F-4 pilots at Henderson were given the Hurricane IIa, for example, why would they perform more poorly, if they were flying a faster, faster climbing, aircraft that was probably more manoeuvrable and was better suited to rough field operations? There is every reason to assume that the Hurricane IIa would do better, using exactly the same tactics as the USN/USMC pilots were using.

Thats what I was asking, was your opinion. Hard to tell on a computer what the other person means, I was honestly asking your opinion. If I were flying the Hurricane in that situation, I would like to opt for 4 or 6 50's and a large supply of ammo, vs 8 303's or 4 20's.

 

[RCAFson]

Thats what I was asking, was your opinion. Hard to tell on a computer what the other person means, I was honestly asking your opinion. If I were flying the Hurricane in that situation, I would like to opt for 4 or 6 50's and a large supply of ammo, vs 8 303's or 4 20's.

Yes, and my opinion is that the Hurricane IIa should have done better than the F4F-4 based upon the performance stats. I would opt for 8 x .303s and a larger ammo supply, if possible, since the .303 should still be effective against the IJN aircraft which were not armoured and an 8 x .303 Hurricane would maximize climb rate and speed. However this site suggests that 4 x 20mm cannon would be best:

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

and if you only have a brief firing pass, using energy tactics, then maybe the 4 x 20mm would be the way to go. I would guess that pilots would want the lightest possible configuration when fighting the Zero.

 

[parsifal]

That doesn't work when the defender has as many fighter aircraft as the attacker plus the advantage of ground control radar. Your fighter sweep is likely to be ambushed by a defending fighter force at least as numerous and in a superior tactical position.

I agree with your conclusions, but not with how you got there. Fighter command was nearly always heavily outnumbered in the air battles, despite having an overall parity or near parity in numbers. Dowding refused to engage his full force because to do so was to hand the germans victory. instead he met each strike with just sufficient force to challenge that raid effectively, leaving the majority of the forces uncommitted, and hence ready for other strikes. In this he was assisted by the poor targetting choices made by the LW and their apparent inability to concentrate most of the time.

How Fighter command avoided the german fighter sweeps was not by meeting the JGs with equal or superior numbers, but simply to vector the angels around such fighter sweeps using their radar advantage and unequalled fighter control to great effect. the limited endurance of the 109 meant they could not loiter to intercept the CAP that had avoided them.

Whether a Zero force with its far superior endurance (but no radios) could rectify this wweakness in the german armoury is a mute point. I personally think the Zero was unsuited to operations in the ETO because of its structural weaknesses, and performance limitations.

Over germany in 1944-5 there was never a massive numerical advatage to the Allies in terms of long range fighters. until the end of 1944, the germans actually enjoyed superiority of numbers. what was diffrerent was the relative lethality (to ground targets) of the heavy bombers, the acute fuel shortages, and the poor logistics and serviceability ratesw brought about by the germasns neglect to build enough spares for their fighters, and most importantly, the abysmal quality of most of her pilots. Unlike the brits, the germans simply had to respond with maximum force to each and every raid, and each time they did so, they suffered enormaous losses....in the order of 7:1 by years end

 

[pinsog]

I gotta disagree on the 303's. I figure if I won't deer hunt with it, then I wouldn't shoot airplanes with it either. Against Japanese, 4 50's would be enough, with a huge supply of ammo of course. 6 would be fine to if it didn't affect performance to badly. 4 20's would be overkill against Japanese aircraft. If you were dead on target everytime you sqeezed the trigger they would fine, since it would only take a couple of rounds to destroy one, but I think that you would spend a good portion of your time missing and trying to get on target and I don't think you would have enough ammo with 4 20's to do that. By the time you miss with 2 or 3 bursts, your out of ammo.