Best naval fighter II

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I don't think the Spit would have made that much difference. The Zeroes made realitvely short work of the Hurricanes they encountered over India and the Spits available in 1941 weren't THAT much better than the Hurricane.
 
Yes they were. Less rugged but they were more manuverable. Spitfire Mk. V against a A6M, interesting dogfight, no?
 
Spit. Mk. V and an A6M would probably be interesing. I think the A6M would hold a pretty decent advantage over the Spit Mk. I.

Lanc, the Japanese did have a huge experience edge over the Hurricane pilots. An edge they still would have held if the RAF boys had been in Spitfires. The IJN pilots had already been in action for several years against the Chinese and had to endure what was probably the most rigorous pilot training in the world at that time.
 
The RAF pilots might have faired better, but I still don't think they would have been able to handle the IJN in 1941. The Zero was one of the very best fighters in service anywhere at the time and the IJN pilots were arguably the best of the entire war.
 
If the Spitfire mk. I was to makeit to India would it have the advatage to dive away as did the P-40s? Also I cannot remember if the Mk I had self-sealing fuel tanks? The bigest braw back for both the RAF and USN was range, so to follow and to stay in combat for as long as the IJN was hard. ;)
 
but remember, if the zero wanted to stay in the air for a long time it would have to stay at it's cruising speed, making it easier for you to catch up........................
 
But the Zero could turn and shoot at you . . .

The Spit Mk. I would have had most of the same advantages the P-40 had. It would have had a little less firepower and a little less durability but could still out dive and out run the Zero. If the RAF kept away from the turning fights they should have been able to come out ok.
 
It's the same situation as Corsair (Spitfire) and Shiden (Zero) in which you argued the Corsair to be the better of the two.
 
It's not the same situation for several reasons. The Corsair was 70mph faster than the Shiden. At best the Spit Mk. I was what 20 mph faster? The Corsair could also outclimb the Shiden and I doubt the Spit Mk. I could outclimb the Zero. But I think the biggest difference is that in 1945 the Americans new better than to try and turn with the Japanse fighters. In 1941, no one in the Western world new what the Zero was capable of. The Spit was a very maneuverable fighter and the British pilots probably would have attempted traditional turning dogfights which was doomed to failure against the Zero.
 
after a while thoguh we would have come up with a effective stratagy for dealing with them......................
 
The RAF may have learnt quickly. If they were quick to understand how to dogfight with a 109 in a Hurricane, then we could understand how a Spitfire would be best against a Zero.

The Americans did it with the Wildcat, I don't see why the British couldn't do it with a Spitfire which was superior to anything else out in the Pacific (Allied) in 1941.
 
I agree that the British would have been able to develop the tactics to counter the Zero. But I'm not sure they would have been as quick as the Americans. Since the Spitfire was clearly a better dogfighter than anything the Americans had in the Pacific in 1941, the British might have been tempted to hold to the traditional dogfight.
 
That's the stubborn way of any force doing it, Lanc. Look at Germany before the war, Guderian had a major task ahead of him convincing the OKH and OKW that his armour tactics were the best.

In 1941 there were the newer Spitfires coming out.
 
there were newer spits coming out al the time, what's your point......................

BTW, i'm sorry if that sounded a bit vindictive.........................
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back