Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
10 August:The RAAF reported time of 2359Z (ie. GMT) is not that far from the Japanese one of 0910 (I'm not sure exactly which zone that is, but it's local morning roughly speaking in both cases). There's not much question about the types which are indicated in JNAF shorthand, plus the 3 man crew of the Type 0 Recon and single pilot of the Type 2 are named, latter was Lt T Ikeda, the 934th's CO. Encountered 3 Spitfires claimed to have downed one. Again note the AE31 article (by Izawa and Shores) says the 'Jake' was downed, and on closer inspection there are other barely visible illegible entries in the report, and it actually doesn't give a return time for this flight, nor do I see the 'Jake' crew members featured in later flights (though Ikeda does appear later), so the report does not refutes a loss, but definitely a 'Jake' if so.G'Day Joe, many thanks for the list mate, makes for interesting reading! Regarding the action of August 10, I have P/O Coombes and F/O Young (both 452 sqn) claiming the shared destruction of a Pete and claiming a second Pete as a probable. You can read their combat reports here - http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/spitfire-vs-different-models-zeros-9133.html Note they both identify the ea as two Petes. As for Gordon, 31sqn never flew a mission against the floatplanes on this day, however on August 11th they did. On this raid the squadron claimed one floatplane "extensively" damaged in aerial combat and one damged on the ground. I also have a reference to Gordon making a claim on this day, however this is obviously incorrect.
Also see the above link for the beaufighter combat reports for the August 17th action.
Incidently, Beauforts from 7 sqn RAAF also claimed a handful of Jakes around this period. W/Cmdr Parson's crew damaged one on 15 Sep, while F/O Legges crew claimed a Jake destroyed on the 20th. Two months later on 11th of Nov, F/L Cox's crew claimed the destruction of a second Jake. Any info on these actions?
The top speed of the A6M2 M.21 was 533 km/h, so it was just as fast as the Hurricane.
i think around 550 km/h (need check) the common figure ~530 km/h was not a max power
This is a very interesting match-up. The historical record speaks for itself - but the Hurri should have had a chance. it could defeat the Zero in a scissor fight, and the 4 20mm cannon fitted to the Hurri would make an almighty mess of any Zero they hit.
In the right circumstances Hurricanes might have been able to compete on even terms with Zeroes, but it was never demonstrated in action. Hurricanes and Zeroes met in combat 6 times for which both sides' losses are known (and only another 1 or 2 more where both sides' losses aren't known). The score in those combats was 6:38 in favor of the Zero, and the Zeroes won every combat. 5 in 1942 over Malaya, DEI and Ceylon, one other 5 December 1943 in the JAAF/JNAF combined raid on Calcutta, 0:3; Army Type 1 fighters downed or force the crash landings of another 6 Hurricanes in that raid also without loss to themselves (the Hurricanes downed 1 Army bomber).
Even using the Type 1 as proxy for the Zero, probably an optimistic assumption from the Hurricane's POV, the Hurricane's record v the Type 1 was also disastrous in the opening campaigns of 1942 and even as of late 1943 the Type 1's in Burma were at least holding their own in actual outcomes v Hurricanes, outscoring them more often than not, though by then there were at least some cases of combats actually won by Hurricanes v Type 1's (needless to say, measuring by British claims the Hurricane was pretty successful v the Type 1 by then, measuring by Japanese claims the Type 1 was overwhelmingly successful).
'Depends on pilots', of course that's the correct answer for almost any match up unless completely one sided, but there's no actual operational evidence of the Hurricane performing well against the Zero in combat, or even v the Type 1 on a consistent basis. The much better record of the F4F v the Zero is not proof IMO that the Hurricane would have done as well even with the same pilots and situation, because it neglects the real possibility that less tangible performance factors put the Hurricane at more of a relative disadvantage than in appears to be on paper.
Joe
I'd give him 15 - 25 seconds, depending on how hard he was gunning it before he got hitHow long before that one bullet in the radiator put the Hurricane out of action?
10 seconds?
20 seconds?
3 minutes?