Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is a bit misleading because not all of the Japanese aircraft - or fighters - were in the same place, and not all of the fighters were actually engaging the Hurricanes. Nor were the losses the same. The Hurricanes and Fulmars consistently lost at a rate of about 2-1 or worse, similar to the Buffalo and the P-39, whereas F4F units, including those flown by the Marines, were able to achieve rough parity.
The USMC pilots had few kind words for the F4F-3, and seemed to consider them as no better than the F2A-3s.
Being able to hit the enemy with your full force and with an altitude advantage certainly helps doesn't it? You completely ignored the tactical disadvantage that the RAF/FAA fighters suffered from on 5 April. This also highlights the fact that fighters with an altitude advantage or parity, as in a meeting engagement with/by carrier fighters gave Allied Pilots tactical options when faced by Zeros.
So the A5M was actually fairly numerous in the Pacific in 1942 nor were Zeros universally fitted with DTs. The last excerpts also shows much of the outright insanity displayed by the IJN higher command.
Even if that were true, which it is not, the combat records of the two types in Theater can show us that there was a big difference. Just as there was with the Hurricane of the Fulmar. Which is why the RN adopted the Martlet.
Neither one of those statements are true.
- (a) As evidenced by statements of pilots who flew them in
actual combat, the performance of the F2A-3 and F4F-3 types of air-
Planes is markedly inferior to that of the Japanese 00 1 Sento Kl -
Fighter in speed, maneuverability, and rate of climb. The fact that.
Marine Fighting squadron 221 gave such an excellent account of it-
self should not be allowed to becloud this fact, but is directly _.
attributable largely to an exceptionally fine organization of fight-
ing pilot personnel and apparent great vulnerability of enemy
bombers. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that F2A-3 and
F4F-3 type airplanes be not assigned as equipment for use in combat,
but be retained for use at training centers only. (MAG 22 CO report)
That's just one report - fighter pilots don't like having an airplane roughly on parity with the enemy. That means a 1-1 exchange ratio on average when they engage enemy fighters, which isn't good for survival let along glory. Yet it was still far better than the Hurricane or Fulmar or Skua did against Zeros. Or for that matter the Spitfire Mk V.
The F4F was inferior in turn rate and definitely in rate of climb to the Zero. Speed depended on the Altitude - the F4F had better high altitude performance. It also had much better dive and high speed handling, two ingredients that proved critical in fighting with the Japanese aircraft. And of course, much better protected and more heavily armed. All this plus a lot of good gunnery training and the Thach weave, meant that F4F units did fairly well against the Zero. The Hurricane, Fulmar, etc. not so much. That's the reality and the historical record.
Eric Brown had this to say about the Martlet: "faster and more maneuverable than the Sea Hurricane"
Lundstrom details the stationing of 64 A5M-4s in the areas raided by USN carriers and the early war lack of Zero DTs which led to an unescorted raid being slaughtered. You're quick to point out such details in the MTO, but not so much in the Pacific.
This report:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf
compares the F4F-4 with the Zero:
page 5 indicates the measured speeds of the Zero:
SL = ______270mph (SAC data states F4F-4 as 284 mph)
5000ft =___287mph
10000ft =__305mph
Page 9 compares the Zero and F4F-4: and states that at all altitudes above 1000ft the Zero is superior in speed and equal below 1000ft. This kinda suggests that the F4F-4 was a bit slower than the official stats.
The FAA received detailed performance reports on the Martlet II and VI and both were inferior to the Sea Hurricane IB in climb and level speed and considerably inferior to the Sea Hurricane IIA/B/C. Some early fixed wing Martlets had no armour or SS tanks and were mainly used for training, and these aircraft are what Brown must have been referring to. Under about 15K ft the Sea Hurricane 1B was superior to the F4F-3/4 in speed and had a considerably better climb rate than the F4F-3/4, because it had a much better power to weight ratio and the same wing area.
The section you quoted from First Team was from one small raid, the Marshall Islands raid February of 1942. Shortly after that they were retired or sent to China. Pretending that the A5M was a significant part of the IJN force in 1942 is ludicrous. How many of those A5M were in action by Coral Sea? As I pointed out already, TWO A5M fighters were on the Shōhō at that time.
By contrast, at the time of Pedastal, the 'massive Axis air armada' of 600 planes that you bragged about was at least half flying boats, biplanes, and other obsolete types. Only about a third could be called modern.
Yes but you are cherry picking
This chart says F4F-3 had a top speed of over 330 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-1845-performance.jpg
This chart says F4F-3 had a top speed of 334 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-1848-performance.jpg
This chart says F4F-3 has a top speed of 330 mph at 19,000 ft and 336 at 22,000 ft
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf
This report says F4F-4 has a top speed of 319 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf
This report says F4F-4 has a top speed of 318 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf
This report says F4F-4 has a top speed of 316 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
This chart says F4F-4 has a top speed of 316-318 depending on the load
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf
We all know that test conditions can change performance. How much fuel they put in, what altitudes are flown, and what kind of external fixtures are present. This is true for all aircraft, American, British, and Axis as well.
Could a Martlet loaded down with maximum possible fuel, some extra gear and maybe an extra antenna or bomb shackles fail to exceed 300 mph? Quite possible. Was that the norm? I don't think so.
They weren't at an altitude disadvantage in both engagements, even in the first one some of the Hurricanes were already at altitude. There were also many other engagements between A6M or Ki 43 with Hurricanes (into 1944!) and the latter always had the same outcome, pretty much - bad to dismal.
I thought we were looking at IJNAS Zeros vs. RAF Hurricanes? I think in the right hands the Hurricane would be about as able as the P-40.Hurricanes over Singapore or over DEI did not particularly shine either, so two more examples even if Ki-43s made also contributions, especially over Malaya.
The Zero fought Hurricanes in Burma? What the heck were was the IJNAS doing in Burma?Or in Burma
The Germans kept such detailed records of everything, to their determent at Nuremberg, but the Japanese seem to record nothing.There is a National Geographic video and magazine article about the underwater wreckage at Truk, if I remember right. Impressive underwater shots of ships with decks covered with equipment, trucks, supplies and one A5M4. I always wondered why they would be receiving an A5M4.
From my foggy memory, the Japanese destroyed everything.The Germans kept such detailed records of everything, to their determent at Nuremberg, but the Japanese seem to record nothing.
Meanwhile they'd leave piles of aircraft to be captured.From my foggy memory, the Japanese destroyed everything.