Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat (1 Viewer)

As long as we're all gathered here together, would the proper pronunciation of Ki-43 be "kay eye" or "kee" 43?

Personally I say Kye but have no idea if that's right or wrong

Schweik said:

Maybe the issue was more dive-acceleration than ultimate dive speed?

Click to expand...

I've been recently reading a good assessment of the main protagonists over Britain in 1940 and it discusses the merits and drawbacks of the Bf 109E, Spitfire Mk.I and Hurricane Mk.I and while the consensus was that at that time, although the Hurricane was a good sturdy gun platform, it was slow compared to the Bf 109, depending on altitude, between 10 mph and 30 mph, which in 1940 performance was a huge margin. yet, Hurricanes regularly defeated Bf 109s in combat. Statistically speaking, Bf 109s shot down more Hurricanes and Spitfires than Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down Bf 109s during the Battle of Britain period, however.

Now, the Bf 109 was faster than the Hurricane at almost all altitudes and its advantage was diving slashing attacks from heights of around 30,000 feet. The entire 'Hunter' ethos of the Jagdgruppen was at play here, since the Bf 109 had a superior climb and dive speed to both the British fighters, not to mention the disadvantage the Merlin engined aircraft suffered when following a Bf 109 in a bunting manoeuvre and their engine cut out. In the vertical plain, the Bf 109 was king.

Problem was, engagement usually began at lower altitudes than those the Bf 109 began from and descended quite rapidly into a one v one melee, and this is where the Spitfire and Hurricane came into their own. The Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the three, apparently and could out turn the Bf 109 with ease, the Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 at low speeds and attempting to turn with a Hurricane cost many an aspiring Jaeger his life. If a Bf 109 attempted to steepen his turn to cut in on either British fighter it could be disastrous for the German - the aircraft's slats could automatically deploy, often asymmetrically, which would cause the aircraft to jerk about in the turn, throwing the pilot's aim and before he knew it, the British fighter was on his tail. Because of the Bf 109's high wing loading, there were examples, and trials by the British with a captured example verified this, where Bf 109s lost their wings in attempting to turn with the British fighters. His only defence was to take advantage of that superior dive speed and make for the Channel and home.

In the heat of battle, the Bf 109E's cockpit was a frantic place - in the early Emils power management was a juggling act, as the propeller pitch control was on the instrument panel, not the side console next to the power lever, which meant the pilot was moving his hands from the power lever to the pitch lever to the joystick to prevent the prop from overspeeding during manoeuvring, the early models not having a constant speed governor, being variable pitch only. This of course lost the pilot vital seconds and was something that expert pilots could get round, but they did complain about it and later models had the pitch lever where it should have been, and later models had a constant speed prop.

In the context of 1942 in the Far East, the Hurricane was no match for the Zero, including low speed manoeuvring, but it could accelerate away from the Zero in a dive - the very tactics it's former adversary used against it two years earlier. In retrospect, the Zero was not very fast, but over Singapore didn't need to be, and US and later British fighters only extended the speed gap, even after the Zero received modifications to improve its performance, but right until the end of the war, Allied pilots were warned to never dogfight the Zero at low speed.

All of this shows that combat is a multifarious thing and that performance figures don't always guarantee victory to the better machine.

Yes good points - that is kind of what I was getting at. There are a lot of smaller factors that come into play, some of which we 'air chair' historians don't always think about. When I read pilot interviews, hoping to get some sort of detailed comparisons of strengths and weaknesses like you outlined above, they so frequently seem to gloss over that and when they do talk about the aircraft, they often mention things I would never think about, like was there a rearview mirror, how good the view was in general, weather the seat was comfortable, whether they had a good cockpit heater, whether it had a "relief tube", how easy was the radio to use, whether it leaked oil a lot, and especially - how tricky were they to takeoff and land. A fighter pilot might only get in one or two air to air engagements in their life, or none, but they had to take off and land for every mission. There are a lot of small details like managing the prop pitch as you said, or using rudder trim which was a big deal in the P-40 (or the lack of trim tabs, which was a big deal on other aircraft)

Features which may have ended up very good, like leading edge slats, could be a big problem when they were first introduced. Most good combat planes had to go through a shakeout before they could really function properly. Lots of little adjustments needed to be made.

And then there was adapting an aircraft to the conditions where they were going to fight. Aircraft like the A6M, the Hurricane, the P-40, the Bf 109 and the Wildcat were used in combat from the freezing arctic down to the torrid Equatorial Tropics. From very dry and dusty to very, very humid and wet; from thin air at high altitude to thick air at near sea level.

I once read a really detailed analysis of all the problems they had with the Spitfire at Darwin and it was sobering - there were so many ways that so many things could go wrong. It was a huge amount of small issues, as simple as cleaning up the ammunition before loading it, that could make the difference between life and death. And of course those persistent problems that the manufacturer couldn't seem to grasp like the heater and the electrical system in the P-38, or the leaky valves on the cooling flaps on the early F4U. Or humidity that fogged up the windscreen in the SBD. If those weren't figured out, the plane couldn't be used to win in combat.

Those are some of the interesting things that start to emerge when the conversation gets a bit deeper. And that's how we turn an intractable argument into something fun and enlightening.

Agree completely, Schweik.

Schweik said:

(or the lack of trim tabs, which was a big deal on other aircraft)

Click to expand...

This was a problem with the Bf 109 throughout its career. Over long periods of time, it was tiring to fly, not least because of its tiny cockpit, but also because it was fitted with ground adjustable tabs only. The hori stab was variable incidence and was controlled by a wheel on the left side of the cockpit beside the seat. It was next to the flap wheel, which was identical in size, the idea being that when extending the flaps, the trim could be adjusted simultaneously to match the changing attitude and prevent the aircraft from 'ballooning', but, that was the only means of trimming the aircraft in flight.

In the Bf 109, the torque from its prop also added to the discomfort of lengthy time in the air, apparently, the pilot needed to have left boot in at all times and although the rudder was asymmetric in profile, it did little on take off since the rudder was practically useless at low speed.

One other problem the Bf 109 had that potentially affected its combat performance was deflection of the joystick. Because of the lack of room in the cockpit, the joystick between the pilot's legs was limited in movement. The bigger the pilot, the worse the issue became. The British carried out a trial using a Bf 109 and came to the conclusion that this seriously affected its manoeuvrability. The Hurricane, by contrast had a larger cockpit and during manoeuvres did not have the same issue - Hurricane pilots had an easier time of it in the throes of manoeuvring.

Nevertheless, the Bf 109 was quite a machine, and the success its pilots had is probably a reflection of them and their skills as much as their mount's abilities as a fighter.

Glider said:

I am sorry but you are now saying that the Hurricane II was heavily loaded with armour and that is the reason why it's performance suffered? I thought the Mk IV was the GA version with extra protection

I haven't been able to find the actual flight test comparison between the Spit V and Zero A6M3 but I have found a good summary which follows. In summary below 20,000 ft the Zero had a number of significant advantages over the Spitfire and over 20,000 ft the Spitfire was able to start gaining the upper hand. Unless you believe that a Hurricane II has a better performance than a Spitfire V, your argument holds little, if any, water. I obviously recognise that a Ki43 is different to a Zero but its characteristics are very similar, speed, agility, acceleration are of the same order

Link is as follows
darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

It should also be noted that air to air combat over Burma was very unusual, the vast majority of sorties were GA missions so of course the aircraft are going to be equipped with bomb racks and other additions. It's a fact of life. All allied aircraft spent most of the time on GA missions. It should also be noted that a number of Ki43 aircraft had similar additions so it wasn't always one sided.
All the links I know (including the one you posted) state that to combat the Japanese fighters you need to keep the speed above 300 mph. A Hurricane after spending some time in Burma would be lucky to get over 300mph beside which the Japanese fighters also had a similar top speed, and had a better acceleration so the difference is marginal.

Click to expand...

"I am sorry but you are now saying that the Hurricane II was heavily loaded with armour and that is the reason why it's performance suffered? I thought the Mk IV was the GA version with extra protection"

I stated: "were heavily loaded with armour, armament (typically 4 x 20mm or 12 x BMGs) carried external hard points with bombs and trop filters." The KI43II might have had bomb rack capability but it was rarely used as a ground attack aircraft.

Hurricanes flew thousands of ground attack sorties in Burma and the number lost to Ki43s was very small. An analysis of KI43/Hurricane combats via Shores ( Air war for Burma) indicates that the KI43s almost always attacked from above, which is hardly surprising, given the ground attack role assigned to the Hurricanes

Where does the A6M3 come into this? We know from USN/USAAF side by side testing that the F4F-4 was completely outperformed by the A6M2 yet USAAF tests show that the Hurricane IIA has generally better performance than their tested example of the A6M2, and that was without the use of overboost on the USAAF Hurricane.

The Spitfire V/M46 comparison to theA6M3 handicapped the Spitfire because it didn't permit it to use overboost, which the high altitude rated Merlin46 requires at low altitude for best performance. When the RAAF Spitfire V/M46 testing was redone with overboost, the performance results applied to the Spitfire/A6M3 tests shifted completely in the Spitfire's favour, except for turn radius and other maneuverability factors.


See my posts here for more info:

Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

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

I think the USN/USAAF kinda had a hunch, before side by side testing, that the Zero outclassed the F4F.

Taking your points one at a time

RCAFson said:

I stated: "were heavily loaded with armour, armament (typically 4 x 20mm or 12 x BMGs) carried external hard points with bombs and trop filters." The KI43II might have had bomb rack capability but it was rarely used as a ground attack aircraft.

Click to expand...

The difference between a Hurricane IIA and a IIB is of course 4 x LMG, as the armour would be the same, hardly a massive difference. 4 x 20mm is of course a lot more but it was the standard fit. The RAF could have limited the Hurricane to 8 x LMG or 2 x 20mm as often done in the Middle East but didn't as GA was the only reason the Hurricane was kept in service.

Hurricanes flew thousands of ground attack sorties in Burma and the number lost to Ki43s was very small. An analysis of KI43/Hurricane combats via Shores ( Air war for Burma) indicates that the KI43s almost always attacked from above, which is hardly surprising, given the ground attack role assigned to the Hurricanes

Click to expand...

I agree with this and the number lost to the Ki43 was small because as I stated the number of air to air combats in this area was very low.

Where does the A6M3 come into this? We know from USN/USAAF side by side testing that the F4F-4 was completely outperformed by the A6M2 yet USAAF tests show that the Hurricane IIA has generally better performance than their tested example of the A6M2, and that was without the use of overboost on the USAAF Hurricane.

Click to expand...

The A6M3 comes into it because the test clearly shows that the Spitfire V was clearly inferior to the A6M3 at the altitudes that the combats in Burma often happened. As a result to believe that the Hurricane was better than the Zero would mean the Hurricane was better than the Spit V which it clearly wasn't.

The Spitfire V/M46 comparison to theA6M3 handicapped the Spitfire because it didn't permit it to use overboost, which the high altitude rated Merlin46 requires at low altitude for best performance. When the RAAF Spitfire V/M46 testing was redone with overboost, the performance results applied to the Spitfire/A6M3 tests shifted completely in the Spitfire's favour, except for turn radius and other maneuverability factors.

Click to expand...

This limitation in the boost allowed to the Spitfire isn't mentioned and to be honest lacks logic, why would the allies limit the boost used. If you have a link that shows the test in more detail I would appreciate it.

RCAFson said:

An analysis of KI43/Hurricane combats via Shores ( Air war for Burma) indicates that the KI43s almost always attacked from above, which is hardly surprising, given the ground attack role assigned to the Hurricanes

Click to expand...

Being attacked from above was an almost universal condition for Allied fighters in 1942.

Glider said:

Taking your points one at a time


The difference between a Hurricane IIA and a IIB is of course 4 x LMG, as the armour would be the same, hardly a massive difference. 4 x 20mm is of course a lot more but it was the standard fit. The RAF could have limited the Hurricane to 8 x LMG or 2 x 20mm as often done in the Middle East but didn't as GA was the only reason the Hurricane was kept in service.

I agree with this and the number lost to the Ki43 was small because as I stated the number of air to air combats in this area was very low.


The A6M3 comes into it because the test clearly shows that the Spitfire V was clearly inferior to the A6M3 at the altitudes that the combats in Burma often happened. As a result to believe that the Hurricane was better than the Zero would mean the Hurricane was better than the Spit V which it clearly wasn't.

This limitation in the boost allowed to the Spitfire isn't mentioned and to be honest lacks logic, why would the allies limit the boost used. If you have a link that shows the test in more detail I would appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Plus the IIB/C underwing hardpoints and stores and trop filters.

Sorry, but the A6M3/Spitfire V/M46 test doesn't show that because the Spitfire was denied the use of 16lb boost. Here's an RAAF test with boost limited to 9lb:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_Vc_Australian-Test.pdf :

Speed at SL = 268

Speed at 10K ft = 312

Speed at FTH = 365

Here's the speeds obtained with 16lb boost:

"AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]

SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT (.)

3 SPITFIRE MARK 5 AIRCRAFT GIVEN EXTENSIVE TEST FLIGHTS HERE

SUCCESSIVELY WITH EACH OF FOLLOWING TYPES OF AIR INTAKE ASSEMBLY AND ENGINE COWLING (A) ORIGINAL TROPICAL (B) NEW TROPICAL WITH BYPASS VALVES AND (C) TEMPERATE. AVERAGE MAXIMUM SPEEDS WERE AS FOLLOWS.

(1) AT SEA LEVEL (A) 312 (B) 318 (C) 316.

(2) AT10,000 FEET (A) 355.5 (B) 355. 6 (C) 360 MPH.

AT FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT (A) 357 (B) 358.5 (C) 363 MPH.

CONSIDERED THAT IMPROVEMENTS IN SPEED WERE TOO SMALL TO WARRANT DEPARTURE FROM ORIGINAL TYPE TROPICALISATION.
HENCE NEW SCHEME WILL NOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY TO MARK 5 AIRCRAFT.
LATEST TROPICAL AIR INTAKE WITH BYPASS VALVE WILL BE INCORPORATED MARK 8 AIRCRAFT."

I don't have the full test, just the results as per above.

The boost levels were not explicitly stated but there's no other explanation for the speeds obtained. Here's a Spitfire V/M45 tested at 16lb boost:

Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report

Speed at 16lb boost/10K ft = 357

Merlin 46 power curve:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg


The A6M3 outperformed the A6M2 but it's really the A6M2/Hurricane II performance that we're discussing since the A6M2 was the type encountered at Ceylon and the type that was compared side by side with the F4F-4 in the USN/USAAF trials.

Interesting:
Everyone's whipping out charts, quoting statistics and making wistful comparisons as if that *may* just possibly change what really happened.

And in the end, what actually transpired cannot be changed...

RCAFson said:

Plus the IIB/C underwing hardpoints and stores and trop filters.

Click to expand...

Trop filters may have been part of the problem for the Hurricanes, as this was frequently mentioned, until they got an improvement over the Vokes.

However, underwing and / or under belly hard points were again, very common for Allied WW2 fighters, particularly in 1942 -43. The Wildcats were not always fitted with these (since they could not carry a heavy bomb load) and that may have been one of their advantages. But they were sometimes, for example at Wake Island. I don't know how ubiquitous that was.

Another issue for Navy aircraft in general is maintenance. Land based Aircraft in Pacific Islands (or in the North African desert) were often maintained and stored in appalling conditions. On the Islands particularly they rarely had proper hangers and really could barely keep aircraft and parts out of the dust and wind and humidity. I live in the sub-Tropics myself and those kinds of conditions (like permanent moisture) do bad things to many kinds of machines. Both pilots and ground crew were frequently plagued by biting insects, tropical diseases, terrible heat and various other problems (fungus, bad food) all of which were likely to affect maintenance and performance.

On a carrier by contrast, the aircraft could be taken fully out of the elements, the parts and fluids could be kept comparatively pristine. They had all the equipment they needed, and though the crews and maintenance personnel may have been working very hard for very long hours, at least they (probably) had comparatively good food and comfortable berths to sleep in. Regular showers. Clean bathrooms.



This might have been another advantage of carrier aircraft like both the A6M and F4F

Schweik said:

Neither one of those statements are true.

Click to expand...

And the last Claude combat missions in Pacific were flown in May/1942 (source: Claringbould/South Pacific Air War, vols.2 & 3)

To be fair though, I think there were still a few Ki-27 around, at least in Burma or China, for a bit longer.

Schweik said:

To be fair though, I think there were still a few Ki-27 around, at least in Burma or China, for a bit longer.

Click to expand...

There were quite a few "obsolete" Japanese types in use to the end of, and after, the war in the CBI theater.

True. I think Ki-27s were in some semi-significant engagements both early and mid-war. They were kind of hard to catch because they were so incredibly nimble. By the very end of course they were throwing any and everything into the mix.

Ki-27 is the only other obsolescent fighter type I can think of, they made a fairly large number of them too (3,300). Except maybe the Ki-45 but that's a bit more modern.

Rato Marczak said:

And the last Claude combat missions in Pacific were flown in May/1942 (source: Claringbould/South Pacific Air War, vols.2 & 3)

Click to expand...

For a Pacific based A5M-4 to engage in a recorded combat mission also requires an Allied AF aircraft to be present to engage it. The lack of combat missions doesn't imply or require a lack of A5M-4s.

For example, the CVL Zuiho was part of the Midway operation and might have engaged the USN carriers if the battle had continued and she carried a complement that included 6 A5M-4s:

Imperial Flattops

But per the original debate - that doesn't really balance out ~300 some odd biplanes, flying-boat bombers, open cockpit fighters, cloth covered trimotors etc. that were supposedly far more deadly than the entire IJN fleet and naval air forces arm, and yet launched multiple strikes against a British convoy that resulted in "no damage".

Schweik said:

But per the original debate - that doesn't really balance out ~300 some odd biplanes, flying-boat bombers, open cockpit fighters, cloth covered trimotors etc. that were supposedly far more deadly than the entire IJN fleet and naval air forces arm, and yet launched multiple strikes against a British convoy that resulted in "no damage".

Click to expand...

Now, who said " that were supposedly far more deadly than the entire IJN fleet and naval air forces arm.."? The fact is that the IJNAF had a large number of obsolescent aircraft in service in 1942. Also the " '300' some odd biplanes, flying-boat bombers, open cockpit fighters, cloth covered trimotors etc.." is a bit of a strange statement given that you've already admitted that many of these were just as capable as the IJN front line TE bombers, and I've pointed out the utility of other aircraft for recon, ASW and ASR.

RCAFson said:

Now, who said " that were supposedly far more deadly than the entire IJN fleet and naval air forces arm.."? The fact is that the IJNAF had a large number of obsolescent aircraft in service in 1942.

Click to expand...

Far fewer, in fact it isn't really comparable. By the time of Pedestal almost none.

Also the " '300' some odd biplanes, flying-boat bombers, open cockpit fighters, cloth covered trimotors etc.." is a bit of a strange statement given that you've already admitted that many of these were just as capable as the IJN front line TE bombers, and I've pointed out the utility of other aircraft for recon, ASW and ASR.

Click to expand...

I think that was in your head. We haven't actually made the detailed comparison yet. I posted the stats, at some point I'll take a deeper dive into it.