Best WWII Air-Force

Sorry, I left out that Johnson was flying a P47. But most of you don't need to be told that.

The Basket said:

The P-36 had a top speed of about 280mph!

How does that compare to a 350mph Emil!

Yes the P-36 was agile but it had a job intercepting bombers.

Never liked the Wildcat or Martlet as it is called here. Available yes...but slow heavy and outclassed. But a good pilot will do the best with what he's got.

Click to expand...

Ahhh...WRONG!

Curtiss 75A
Performance
Maximum speed: 322 mph (518 km/h) Cruise speed: 260 mph (420 km/h)
Range: 650 mi (1,046 km)
Service ceiling: 32,340 ft (9,860 m)
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)
Wing loading: 25 lb/ft² (122 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (0.29 kW/kg)

The 109E had abut a 20mph speed advantage over the Hawk 75A which was actually a P-36G. The Hawk 75 was more maneuverable and had a better roll rate.

For the Wildcat to be outclassed it still held between a 4 to 1 to 6 to 1 advantage over its opponents (depending who you believe). Here's the Marlet encounter over the North Sea...

"Another remarkable FM-2 fighter combat occurred in the ETO. March 26 1945 FAA FM-2's (Wildcat VI's) encountered Bf109G's of JG/5 off Norway. They claimed 4 w/o loss. German records say 3 Bf109's failed to return.

In those 1945 cases, declining Axis pilot quality was surely a factor, but the FM-2 was small, highly maneuverable, had good low altitude climb, and the excellent gunnery characteristics of the basic Wildcat (esp the low nose for easy high deflection tracking). It proved a capable dogfighter against its actual opposition in 1945, in verified incidents."


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/f4f-wildcat-5715.html

Yes, Flyboy, and much more rugged than a 109.

renrich said:

Just a note, there seems to be a bias on this forum toward the models of ac that fought in the ETO. Understandable since many members live in Europe. However, I think it is well to remember that many formidable ac fought in the Pacific. For instance, as far as long range fighters are concerned, the A6M went operational on the last day of July, 1940, and was in action in China in August-September of 1940. I know, the Zeke had no armor and no self sealing tanks at this time. Neither at this time, during the BOB, did the British or German fighters have the complete set of self sealing tanks. When you compare the performance of the 109, Spit, Hurricane and Zeke in 1940, an argument could be made that the Zeke overall was the best fighter in the world. What would have happened during the BOB if the LW bombers had been escorted by A6Ms with more than twice the range of the 109s. Moving on, Hellcats and especially the Corsairs were at least the equal of the fighters in the ETO. Someone stated earlier that the Spit could outdive any ac. According to Bob Johnson, in mock dogfights with Spits, he could always outdive and outroll Spitfires.

Click to expand...

Its a good point to raise about looking at other areas of the world and one well taken.

The only bit I would comment on is the date of the Zero being operational in July 1940. These were pre production prototypes which were deployed in action which was common practice in Japan. For example the Ki44 scored its first kill in Jan 1942 before production was undertaken.
Its worth remembering that at the time of Pearl Harbour the IJN still only had around 450 in service.

Its also worth remebering that the FW190 was in a similar timeframe with some of the first A0 series reaching front line units in late 1940.

Glider said:

Its a good point to raise about looking at other areas of the world and one well taken.

The only bit I would comment on is the date of the Zero being operational in July 1940. These were pre production prototypes which were deployed in action which was common practice in Japan. For example the Ki44 scored its first kill in Jan 1942 before production was undertaken.
Its worth remembering that at the time of Pearl Harbour the IJN still only had around 450 in service.

Its also worth remebering that the FW190 was in a similar timeframe with some of the first A0 series reaching front line units in late 1940.

Click to expand...

The Zero was a good fighter untill middle 1942 when its glaring weaknesses became apparent.

By Dec 1942, it was obsolescent.

Got the speed wrong on the P-36...but is it the French version?

If the Wildcat can shoot down Gustavs then I would look at the German pilots on this one.

The Zero would still have been outclassed by the Spitfire and those 8 guns would have made sushi of the unprotected pilot.

The Basket said:

Got the speed wrong on the P-36...but is it the French version?

Click to expand...

As stated - the Hawk 75A was basically a P-36G.

The Basket said:

If the Wildcat can shoot down Gustavs then I would look at the German pilots on this one.

Click to expand...

Pilot skill is always a consideration.

The Basket said:

The Zero would still have been outclassed by the Spitfire and those 8 guns would have made sushi of the unprotected pilot.

Click to expand...

Remember, there were Spitfires in Burma and Australia - their records are lackluster mainly because of tactics. Almost everyone who initially came across the Zero tried to dogfight it at lower speeds (300 mph and less). Once it was found out the Zero could not maneuver at higher speeds in many cases it became cannon fodder.

Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.


Glider,

Yes, many Allied a/c were lost to Flak BUT you fail to recognize that even more LW a/c were lost to Flak, many times friendly fire (Esp. in Normandy), and ALLOT of German fighters were lost to the defensive fire from the Allied bombers, and even more LW fighters were shot to pieces on the ground. These are factors which need to be considered if you want to bring up the Allied losses to flak.

Another thing to remember is that the LW lost a good deal of 109's due to landing take off accidents, it was a tricky plane in this area and completely unforgiving to any novice behind the wheel.

Hunter,

I do not believe the Germans to be born warriors anymore than the people of any other country - the ability to be successful in combat is a combination of training, experience talent, the first two being something the average German soldier possessed allot of during WW2. The Wehrmacht's education training course was good deal tougher than that of any other nation during WW2, 3 times as long as the education training given to the average US UK soldier. Ofcourse this changed as the war went on, and by late 1944 to 1945 the average German soldier recieved approx. the same training as the average Allied soldier, and sometimes allot less (The Hitler Jugend for example consisting mostly of Ill-trained, in a military sense, but extremely fanatical young bunch of blokes) The soldiers of the Waffen SS also didn't recieve the same amount of training as the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, and aqcuired most of their skills from raw battlefield experience, and the fact that Hitler made sure that the Waffen SS was the first units to recieve new weapons supplies also helps explain their effectiveness on the battlefield as-well despite their shorter military education training compared to the soldiers of the Wehrmacht.

As to the issue of heavily armed bomber interceptors being engaged by escorting Mustangs, well Bill refuses to even consider this, no surprise since this debunks what'ever fantasy he might have regarding the Mustang being a better fighter. The gun-pods put on the 109's dramatically decreased maneuverability, speed and climb rate, and the FW-190's who usually featured the ETC-501 rack suffered even more in terms of performance agility lost. This loss of performance agility was all for ONE thing, and that was turning the 109's 190's into effective bomber-destroyers, and it worked - the USAAF RAF lost more personnel due to aerial combat than the LW did. The bomber-interceptors were there to shoot down the main threat to German industry, THE BOMBERS, they weren't meant or prepared to mix it with other fighters, that job was reserved for the few dedicated fighters deployed. Fact is the bomber interceptors were sitting ducks for any escorts, be it P-38's, P-47's or P-51's, all three would have done the job just as well, and the P-47 perhaps even better.

I stand by what I said earlier, the P-51 only achieved success because of its numerical superiority and the fact that it was faced mostly with heavily armed interceptors sometimes piloted by complete novices lacking on fuel.

Soren said:

Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.


I stand by what I said earlier, the P-51 only achieved success because of its numerical superiority and the fact that it was faced mostly with heavily armed interceptors sometimes piloted by complete novices lacking on fuel.

Click to expand...

You haven't been busy researching - curious as to your current definition of 'numerical superiority'.

If the Mustang was such an inferior aircraft, any me 109 or Fw 190 should have been able to defeat it, or at least match up close to one to one, (by your standards).. why did so many of them fall to P-51s when their numbers exceeded the Mustangs.

There was sushi served when the first Spitfire-Zeke dogfights took place alright but it was flavored by dead British pilots. Even in 1944-45 the Zero was a formidable adversary in the hands of an experienced pilot. If an Allied fighter pilot tried to fight an angles fight even in a Corsair he was going up against long odds. Energy tactics although they were not called that then were the ticket against the A6Ms. The throw weight of the Zero's 2-20mms and the 2-7.7s was substantially greater than the 8-303s of the British fighters. To compare performance of late 1940 fighters. Spitfire Mk1a-Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=6min,12sec to 4570meters, ceiling=34000 ft, range=395 ml. A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft, range = 1891 NM. As you can see the Zero outclimbed, out ranged and could turn tighter than the Spitfire and carried heavier armament, the Spit was even in ceiling and faster with more armor. I would bet the LW would have loved to have had a few squadrons of A6Ms to escort their bombers and stay over Britain for an hour or two instead of a few minutes. For that matter I bet the RAF would have liked to have had a few squadrons of F4F3s with it's rate of climb and 4-50s with 400 rds per gun and long endurance.

Soren said:

Hey I'm back - been very busy at work lately.


Glider,

Yes, many Allied a/c were lost to Flak BUT you fail to recognize that even more LW a/c were lost to Flak, many times friendly fire (Esp. in Normandy), and ALLOT of German fighters were lost to the defensive fire from the Allied bombers, and even more LW fighters were shot to pieces on the ground. These are factors which need to be considered if you want to bring up the Allied losses to flak.

Another thing to remember is that the LW lost a good deal of 109's due to landing take off accidents, it was a tricky plane in this area and completely unforgiving to any novice behind the wheel..

Click to expand...

I take it you have figures to support this?
Working on the assumption that you haven't, you yourself proved that it was many times more dangerous for a German fighter pilot to fly in the West rather than the East and other postings prove that the GAF suferred very heavy losses compared to the USAAF.
a) Landing accidents would be the same proportionately across the entire airforce so that rules out that as an reason for the extra losses in the West.
b) The homeland defence forces were not at any risk of being shot down by Allied AA fire, so that rules out that as an reason for the extra losses in the area.
c) Presumably the USAAF being the target of the German AA forces were more likely to be shot down than the GAF, so that rules that out as a reason for the additional German losses.

Which leaves us with the GAF fighter force not being as good as the USAAF Mustangs.

Can you find fault with the Logic?

I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?

renrich said:

There was sushi served when the first Spitfire-Zeke dogfights took place alright but it was flavored by dead British pilots. Even in 1944-45 the Zero was a formidable adversary in the hands of an experienced pilot. If an Allied fighter pilot tried to fight an angles fight even in a Corsair he was going up against long odds. Energy tactics although they were not called that then were the ticket against the A6Ms. The throw weight of the Zero's 2-20mms and the 2-7.7s was substantially greater than the 8-303s of the British fighters. To compare performance of late 1940 fighters. Spitfire Mk1a-Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=6min,12sec to 4570meters, ceiling=34000 ft, range=395 ml. A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft, range = 1891 NM. As you can see the Zero outclimbed, out ranged and could turn tighter than the Spitfire and carried heavier armament, the Spit was even in ceiling and faster with more armor. I would bet the LW would have loved to have had a few squadrons of A6Ms to escort their bombers and stay over Britain for an hour or two instead of a few minutes. For that matter I bet the RAF would have liked to have had a few squadrons of F4F3s with it's rate of climb and 4-50s with 400 rds per gun and long endurance.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that the LW would have given their right arm to have an aircraft with the range of the Zero and that the Zero was every bit as good as the Spitfire but it would have been close.
The 8 x 303 although light compared to the Zero (or 109E for that matter), it would have been far more effective against the Zero due to the obvious lack of protection.
As for performance the Spit II is a better comparison due to its entry into service in June 1940 almost exactly when the Pre Production Zero's entered combat.
A6M2-Vmax=331mph, rate of climb=5min 50 sec to 5000 meters, ceiling=33790 ft,
Spit II Vmax=355mph, rate of climb=5min to 4750 meters, ceiling=35,000 ft

Both planes climb well for the time and neither dive well, The Spit has a slight but noticable speed advantage and the Zero has better agility. Both have weapons that are effective against the other. Obviously the Zero has a clear advantage in range.

I suspect the result will depend on the tactical situation and pilot skill. Plus the British remembering to keep their speed above 250mph, if they do that they will have the advantage, if they don't the Zero will have the advantage. Its close.

Well I for one think the Spitfires did alright agianst the Zero's (over Darwin anyway, don't know much about the engagments over Burma). The Spitfire's of No1 Fighter Wing RAAF, first went into action against the Japanese in March 1943. In 1943, the largest raids conducted by the Japanese against Darwin occured between the 3rd of March to the 6th of July. In this period the defending spitfire's claimed 24 Zero's and 30 Bombers destroyed for the loss of 37 spifires. The losses for the spits are high, yes, however if you look more closely at the different raids the majority of losses incurred by the spit's came about though mechanical problems or pilot error.
probably the best example can be given for the infamous raid no. 54 on the 2nd of May 1943. 49 spitfires intercepted 41 Japanese a/c only claiming 4 zero's destroyed. For this the wing lost 14 spitfires. Most people reading this understandably think the zero's mauled the spits and I believe this is why many people think the spitfires were outclassed over Darwin. However of the 14 a/c lost, 3 were shot down, 2 probably shot down, 4 crashed due to engine or airscrew failure and 5 ditched after they ran out of fuel. All pilots were saved bar the 2 "probables" (were they shot down??)
As for which a/c was better, it must be remembered that the No1 Fighter Wing at Darwin was equipped with the MkVc with Volkes filter which I believe hindered its performance. Also spares were a big issue, it has been noted that some "replacement" a/c recieved by the wing came from the OTU's in pretty rough shape. There was wide spread malfunctions with the guns and ammo plus malfunctions with the airscrew constant speed unit which contributed to the big losses on the 2nd May raid. After taking into all these considerations plus the spitfires range (or lack of) compared to the Zero, I believe the zero probably just held the advantage over the spit. However saying that it is obvious the the spits eventually gained air superiority over Darwin because after the losses suffered in the March-july '43 period, the japanese diverted to night raids on the Australia coast suffering only small losses but also not achieving a great deal.

pbfoot said:

I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?

Click to expand...

In the beginning of the air war over Europe, yes, they would do that, even though the rear quadrant of the bombers was probably the most heavily defended (i.e.: a majority of the bombers defensive armament was oriented to defend the rear 180 degrees of the bomber).

However, as the War progressed, the LW took to attacking the bombers head-on, as there was much less defensive armament pointed in that direction; this is what led to the development of the forward Bendix chin turret on late-model B-17F's and all of the B-17G's. Normally, especially with the later cannon-armed LW fighters, the LW aircraft only had enough fuel ammo to make one good head-on pass, maybe two, and then it was time to head back to base; the LW pilot had 2-3 seconds, at most, to line up his shot and squeeze off a few hundred rounds before he had to break away when making a head-on attack.

Usually, the LW defensive fighters (mostly Sturmbock Fw 190's and Me 109G-10's) had enough time to land, rearm, and attack the bombers again as they egressed the target area.

From WILDCAT,

the infamous raid no. 54 on the 2nd of May 1943. 49 spitfires intercepted 41 Japanese a/c only claiming 4 zero's destroyed. For this the wing lost 14 spitfires

Click to expand...

.

The Spitfire received very bad press in Australia as a result of this action, although the losses were not so much a result of the aircraft itself, but due to incorrect tactics. After all, the American P-40 pilots of the 49th Fighter Group had learned months ago not to dogfight a Zero...As for the Spitfire-more fuel certainly wouldn't have hurt.

The Advisory War Council set up an official enquiry into what the public perceived as a debacle-fuelled by the daily press-and the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshall Jones reported to it.
The result was the decision to fit drop tanks to the Spitfires and to ban dogfighting in the classical sense of the word. From now on, No.1 Wing's Spitfires would 'bounce' enemy formations from above, diving through them, shooting as they went.
The new hit and run tactics were tested during the next Japanese raid on Darwin on June 20 when 25 bombers escorted by a "healthy" number of Zeros was intercepted. This time the result was more satisfactory for the pilots of 54, 452 and 457 Squadrons: 16 enemy aircraft were downed for the loss of 2 Spitfires. During this engagement Wing Cdr Caldwell achieved another level of 'acedom' by shooting down his fifth Japanese aircraft, adding to the 20.5 Axis aircraft he'd already accounted for in North Africa.

From-SPITFIRE, MUSTANG AND KITTY HAWK in Australian Service.

pbfoot said:

I'm trying to put a visual aspect to my view of these formations . So with a bomber formation of about 60 miles long cruising at 180knots at what I'm going to assume in the fl250 area . The fighters would I think cruise economically at about 220knots . I hope my suppositions are corrrect. So would the fighters in squadrons start at the rear of the formation and as they reach the the front of the bombers because of the higher speed turn port and starboard alternately and head to the rear in a cab rank affair?

Click to expand...

I must clarify this question I'm looking for how the USAAC P51s etc covered the B17's and 24's .

pbfoot said:

I must clarify this question I'm looking for how the USAAC P51s etc covered the B17's and 24's .

Click to expand...

From 'Aircraft versus Aircraft' by Norman Franks.

Chapter on Flying Escorts;

"Staying close to the bombers, however, reduced this range owing to their having to weave to stay with their slower charges".

Good posts on the Spifire in the Pacific and I want to be clear that I believe the Spit was an outstanding Ac with a lot of "stretch" in the design. The Zero too was outstanding also but because of the desire for long range and maneuverability it did not have the ability to continue to accept the large increases in engine power the Spit did. One characteristic the Zeke had apparently which is overlooked possibly is reliablity. In the tests against Navy and AAF fighters the Zeke captured in the Aleutians kept chugging along while the P39, P40, P38 and P51 all had problems that forced them be unable to complete the comparisons. The Wildcat though able to complete the tests was clearly inferior to the Zeke in most respects while the Corsair was the only US fighter that completed the tests and was superior in all aspects except low speed maneuverability. Maybe that episode was a commentary on radial versus inline engines but if possible it would be interesting to compare the serviceability records of the Zero versus it's advesarys. Another note on the Zeke is that the knock on it was that the ailerons became ineffective above 275 mph or so. It is my understanding that the limiting factor was pilot strength in deflecting the ailerons at high speeds. Guess they needed to have stronger pilots.

Graeme said:

From 'Aircraft versus Aircraft' by Norman Franks.

Chapter on Flying Escorts;

"Staying close to the bombers, however, reduced this range owing to their having to weave to stay with their slower charges".

Click to expand...

In the specific example of USAAF ETO/MTO doctrine this not only correct but probably should be noted that most long range escort missions were performed in 'relays'.

The shorter range fighters would provide Penetration and Withdrawal - taking the bombers to a point like Munster or Bingen, where a Mustang or Lightning Group would perform the next relay to and from the R/V to the target and back to the Withdrawal.

In rare circumstances the 'middle leg' for a really long mission, like one of the Shuttles, a Mustang or lightning group would pick up at say Dummer Lake and escort to Stettin, where the Shuttle Escort would pick up and escort to Piryatin or Poltava. On the way back to Italy the same Russia escort covered the bombers all the way back to Adriatic Sea and everybody flew to Italy.

I think I covered the standard Squadron doctrine in which the squadrons usually broke up into 8 ship sections and weaved across the top of the formation (like a huge thatch weave in slow speed) to cover front, back and high middle.

By the fall, then winter of 1944/45 the P-47s had acquired the range to do Target Support also and the number of Free Lance Mustang Sweeps (Rodeo) expanded enabling even more coverage out ahead of All target vans, often breaking up concentrations of German Fighters long before they had assembled into a combat formation and proceeded to a bomber formation.