Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

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

Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engines.

The Spitfire could have been very long ranged if all the communication equipment, armour, self sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreen, had mauser 20mm instead of Hispano's, had both rear and underseat unsealed tanks and the pilots flew over France doing 130mph at 10,000ft, but you would have to have a very robust pilot training program to keep up and the Luftwaffe would have many more pilots with over 100 kills to their name.
 

No, neither did the Spit, but both had protection fitted from the factory plus all in service aircraft were retrofitted after the battle of France and before the Battle of Britain. The British, American and German air forces put great emphasis on saving their pilots.
 
All aircraft have faults and any one of those faults could contribute to disaster if if the pin action of a battle goes just right after which in hind sight we can say it was fatally flawed just look at what happened because it didn't have enough speed, or couldn't climb fast enough to intercept those bombers that clinched the decisive battle, or didn't have the range to get to the enemy, or in this case didn't carry a substantial ammunition load.
By that standard I guess all aircraft are fatality flawed in some way so ok, ya.
However, in total what was the better aircraft for what the IJN needed in 1941 if they could have anything else in existence at the time? The Buffalo? The Bf109e? The p40? Even assuming you could fly them off of a carrier.
Imho it was THE best aircraft in the world at the time for those requirements.
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
...
The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's,
...
Click to expand...

Source?


Yet, somehow, people at Kawasaki managed to have radio, armor, self sealing tanks, BP windscreen, along with double the internal fuel tankage on the even smaller fighter, the Ki-61.
Back in the UK, people at Supermarine managed to stuff extra 36 gals on the Spitfire VII/VIII, and later to cram extra 75+ imp gals of fuel on Spitfire XI (unfortunately too late). Or, what about the people in the USA that did about the same, and flew the Spitfire to the UK? How did they dared? Nevermind, the war was going on.

The only thing precluding Spitfire from being designed as a long range fighter was then-current RAF doctrine.
 
PAT303 said:
So we are comparing a Spit with a single 85 gallon tank to a Mustang with main, rear Berlin tank and two DT's?.
Click to expand...

You asked "Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engine" I gave you a map of when the " UK point defence role was passed" Does that look short range or long range?. And when was I mentioning Mustangs? Note Mustang date of 1944
 
However, in total what was the better aircraft for what the IJN needed in 1941 if they could have anything else in existence at the time? The Buffalo? The Bf109e? The p40? Even assuming you could fly them off of a carrier.
Imho it was THE best aircraft in the world at the time for those requirements.

Give me a Wildcat anyday, yes they didn't have the performance of the Zero but they also didn't burst into flames at the the first sign of a hit, protect your most valuable asset first and foremost, your pilots.
 
I agree the f4f would probably be the closest. Some would say a little better overall. Some would say not quite as good but even assuming the f4f is a bit better( I would call them about even overall but not for what the IJN needed, specifically range), but even giving a slight edge to the Wildcat is a slight edge enough to say the other plane is fatally flawed?
 
Last edited:

True enough-but what British fighter could do the job of the Zero? What one had the range of the Zero, along with performance and protection? Oh, and could land on a carrier.
 
All aircraft have the potential to be fatally flawed. It's just a case of when the circumstances of the moment happen to coincide with one of that plane's weaknesses. Early on, the performance and firepower of the Zero, largely due to its lack of protection, kept that lack from causing crippling losses. But as soon as it started to encounter planes with equivalent firepower and superior survivability, even if with somewhat lesser performance, that lack became a critical flaw.
Any warplane is a package deal; in modern parlance, a "weapon system", consisting of the plane, the aircrew training and proficiency, and the operational doctrine and tactics.
Given that perspective, the A6M2 was the best possible fit for the IJNAF in 1941. The only other potential contenders, IMHO P40 and F4F, were each incompatible with the other 2/3 of the IJNAF "package".
The biggest mistake of the Japanese was the failure to trade a little of the Zero's awesome agility advantage for self sealing tanks and pilot armor to bring a 1940 fighter to 1942 standards.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
yes they didn't have the performance of the Zero but they also didn't burst into flames at the the first sign of a hit,
Click to expand...

It didn't though. Have you read Saburo Sakai's book Samurai? Let's also remember that even in 1945, US pilots were warned not to dog fight a Zero. it was in 1940 the best carrier fighter in the world and was a formidable foe right until the end. Apart from the uninformed ramblings of internet warriors, no one who has had anything to do with the Zero at the time has ever considered it 'fatally flawed'.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
but I've spoken with enough WWII pilots and read enough WWII interviews that agreed Zeroes "flamed easily", to chose to disbelieve it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it was 'fatally flawed' - put enough shells into a Tiger tank and it'll flame easily. The problem is, this argument comes up sooo often on this forum that I find myself trolling through old posts to recycle what's been said in the past. This is a post I made a few years ago.

"Zeroes could take a lot more punishment that what most people realise. They were not structurally weak, contrary to popular opinion. A light weight structure doesn't mean a weak structure. Yes, Horikoshi carried out lightening measures, which included lightening holes in everything, but it wasn't structurally weak. In Sakai's book Samurai (admittedly embellished a bit by Caidin, unfortunately) he discusses occasions where Zeroes returned back to the carriers completely shot up, their pilots wondering how they made it back in the condition they were in. The following is from a report written by American John Foster Jr., Managing Editor of "Aviation" magazine on the A6M3 Model 32;

"Nothing has been spared to keep weight down, neither excessive manhours to manufacture complex units, nor increasing maintenance difficulties for ground crews. Lightening holes, for example, are used prolifically— even in the pilot's seat—and diameters as small as half an inch are found throughout the craft. Outstanding of the weight saving measures is complete elimination of protective armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. It all results in a plane that is extremely vulnerable despite good maneuverability at medium speeds.
This weight-saving design would indicate that the craft is flimsily built but such is not the case, for its strength compares favorably with many American-built planes."

I'm trying to find the quote from Sakai's book where he talks about times when Zeroes returned full of holes. They could withstand much more punishment than is often realised. I have no doubt that during combat US pilots were often amazed by what they saw when they shot at Zeroes and saw them explode, probably happened a lot, too. Was it a fatal flaw? No, because that didn't always happen. Hit any aircraft in the right place and it'll go down in flames after little encouragement, as you know.
 
PAT303 said:
Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.
Click to expand...
We're not shopping for a better carrier fighter for Japan. This thread is about the Zero vs. the Fw 190 and Spitfire. Since the latter aren't carrier aircraft, we have to assume the A6M is either flying from a land base or was launched from a carrier and then flown to the Spitfire or Fw 190.

In 1941, against the Fw 190 the Zero is fatally flawed. When it entered service in August 1941 the Fw 190 was arguable the finest fighter aircraft in the world. It was much faster than the Zero, heavier armed and with armour and self sealing tanks. Certainly dogfighting with the A6M is undesirable with pretty much any Germany, Italian or Allied fighter, but the faster Fw 190 doesn't need to dogfight.

Just look at the excellent armour protection the Fw 190 pilot enjoys...



We keep talking about 1941, but for the most part the Allies were fighting the Zero from 1942 onwards, which gives us the superb Spitfire Mk IX. Again, dogfighting with a A6M should be avoided, but like Fw 190 the Spitfire IX has speed, protection and firepower advantages over the A6M.

Was the A6M the best carrier fighter of 1941? Yes, protection aside, it had the range and sufficient firepower. The Zero is one of my all time favourite aircraft and I want to give it a fair shake. A British version of the same would have been invaluable in the Mediterranean convoys and carrier ops. But against the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX that entered widespread service in 1942, the A6M is in trouble.
 
Last edited:


IMO, either the Spit or FW190 would have been nearly useless to the Japanese in 1940-42. At that point, the Japanese were on the offensive and needed aircraft (such as the Zero and Oscar) that had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Both the Spit and the FW, as good as they were as point defense fighters, couldn't do that, at least not over the long distances of the Pacific. By late 42 on, maybe, when the Japs were much more on the defensive. But even then, they needed the capability to carry out long-range strikes. Wrong tool for the job.
 
According to others on this site who researched it extensively including research of the Japanese records of the units involved, the Japanese with the 'fatally flawed Zero' flew 500 miles 1 way, shot down 28 Spitfires over Darwin for the loss of 3 Zeros and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that ran out of fuel over their own territory, I believe they lost 10 Spitfires in one raid due to running out of fuel (a bit embarrassing that a 2nd rate turd of a fighter like a Zero could fly 500 miles one way and run the vaunted Spitfire out of fuel over their own base. I guess the Japanese pilots weren't smart enough to know they were supposed to all burst into flames at the sight of a Spitfire) They were MarkV Spitfires with 2 20mm cannon and 4 303 machineguns, these particular Spitfires being equipped with high altitude engines. Some people make excuses about the high altitude engine being the reason it couldn't compete with the Zero, but in some of these raids the bombers were coming in at 28,000 feet (apparently to stay above the P40's). If 28,000 feet isn't a good time to have a high altitude engine then I'm not sure when you would need one.

Quick question: if a Spitfire carrying 85 gallons of fuel is getting shot down at a rate of 28-4, how are they supposed to increase the internal fuel capacity to get better range, obviously increasing weight, and not have an even worse exchange ratio?

As I stated before I believe an Me109 (or FW190) would either one be better for fighting a Zero than a Spitfire, both being able to dive away at will and the FW190 in particular having a fantastic roll rate.
 
Agreed. If you can't get to where the war is you can't even start to fight.
 

IJN carrier doctrine revolved around the ability for CAP Zero's to land and re-arm once their 20mm ammunition was expended, that put fueled and armed strike planes below decks. It was the fires these planes propagated after USN bomb hits that has been recognised as one of the leading contributors to the carriers being lost at midway. Saburo Sakai was a formidable fighter pilot, it was lucky he flew the Zero because if he had a Hellcat many more Allied pilots would not have made it home.
 

That is an exceedingly selective quotation. In the campaign over NW Australia 1 Fighter Wing did lose 28 Spitfires to enemy action. It shot down (according to those Japanese records) 15 bombers, 7 reconnaissance aircraft and 6 fighters.


There were well known and documented issues with the cannon. The RAF claimed one stoppage per gun per 1500 rounds, but this was not the experience of 1 Fighter Wing. The cannon armament in Australia proved dysfunctional, unable to cope with cold/altitude, with the ingestion of dust from poor airfields and with the failures of the Austin Belt Feed Mechanism. Combat Reports almost invariably note failures of cannon to fire. The first Fulton raid on 30th June saw 54 Squadron make 13 gunnery passes at the Japanese bombers in their initial attack (the escorting fighters did not intercept the Spitfires). Every single Spitfire except one suffered cannon failures. This was not atypical as a browse of those combat reports will show. Shooting down a bomber, even a Japanese bomber, with 4 rifle calibre machine guns was never going to be easy. The Japanese reports of bombers returning damaged shows that they were being hit, but not destroyed.

Then there is the problem of the failing CSUs. The British blamed this on the pilots for their over vigorous opening of their throttles in dives, but the RAAF had other explanations, beyond the scope of this reply. It is true that the pilots in Australia were not following the rather precise instructions for the use of the propeller- CSU- engine combination on their aircraft, but it was a lot to ask of a pressured or frightened pilot manoeuvring in combat. Altitude and cold were factors, the same problem did not manifest itself over, for example Malta, where the Axis bombers typically arrived 10,000 feet lower.

All in all the performance of three Spitfire squadrons, flown by extremely average pilots and operating in adverse conditions beset by numerous technical problems, not least their armament, is not really a good measure of performance. It's actually remarkable that given their situation, the Spitfires of 1 Fighter Wing did not perform in a markedly inferior way to their colleagues in other theatres. It was only in the defence of Malta that the Mk V came close to matching the Mk I's record in the BoB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
Replies
1
Views
222
PAT303
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register