Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[PAT303]

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?

The pilots of 1 Wing RAAF were ordered to ignore the escorts and attack the Betty's, of the 28 Spits lost, 19 were shot down while they themselves were directly attacking a bomber, as ordered. http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
How could they have done better, have a read http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=articles

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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.

A flaw is only "fatal" if it results in an unacceptable loss rate. The planes (of all combatants) that made it back to base "full of holes" are the ones that weren't hit in an unprotected vital spot. I'm sure they all engendered faith and gratitude in their pilots. But when your long range fuel tanks and your cockpit and your lubrication system are unprotected, there's a lot less area left to punch "harmless" holes in.
As long as your performance and tactics are sufficiently superior to keep enough formidably armed opponents from getting a good shot at you, you're able to dominate. But when their tactics and performance catch up, and it's your turn to take a beating, your vulnerability to fire becomes a fatal flaw IMHO.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Admiral Beez]

IMO, either the Spit or FW190 would have been nearly useless to the Japanese in 1940-42. Wrong tool for the job.

Of course, they're not useful to the Japanese, the A6M is a long range carrier aircraft, the Fw 190 and Spitfire are neither.

But I don't think that's the topic of this thread, we're not trying to replace the Zero. Instead we're looking at how the three compare. That's my take anyway.

 

[nuuumannn]

your vulnerability to fire becomes a fatal flaw

Sorry, man, I respect what you are saying, but the Zero's fate by the time the Allies introduced the Hellcat was sealed, regardless of this so-called 'fatal flaw'. It didn't matter if it was the most heavily protected fighter in the world, the result would have been the same. Japan didn't stand a chance by 1944/1945 because of the diminishing quality of its pilots and lack of resources, not because the Zero turned into a flamer. Had Japan been able to field better quality pilots, a more advanced aircraft to replace the Zero and better tactics, such flaws would not have been as glaring or easily exploitable.

Like I said in an earlier post, there weren't many fighters in April 1939 that had self sealing fuel tanks, armour plating etc, so by whose standards are you judging the aircraft on? The Zero was the equivalent of the F4F and the Fairey Fulmar in terms of carrier fighters. But, you put an ace like Sakai or Nishizawa in an A6M2 and a tyro pilot in a Hellcat and watch what happens. As I've said in another post, the US pilot having been bested by a well flown Zero isn't going to sit there as his burning aircraft spirals to the ground, saying "But his aircraft has a fatal flaw! I should have beaten it!"

(This doesn't diminish my respect for you and your flying career, man - keep the recollections up).

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

That has nothing to do with the Zero or its abilities or flaws, nor does whether the floatation bags were removed or whether the pilots flew without parachutes, nothing whatsoever. And your statement about Sakai in a Hellcat, that's a bit obvious, but consider this, if Sakai was flying an A6M2 and a tyro flying a Hellcat and the two pitched themselves into a fight, I'd still put my money on Sakai in the Zero, frankly. And this is the point I'm trying to make - the Japanese didn't lose because of the diminished abilities of the Zero compared to aircraft such as the F4U or Hellcat; not at all. The Japanese lost through far more strategic reasons than no follow-up to the Zero and having to live with its flaws. Right until the very end of the war, US pilots were warned never to dogfight a Zero. That in itself was a credit to the design and ability of what was by then an obsolescent fighter.

 

[drgondog]

1943

View attachment 561114​

Those oft cited charts are somewhat out of synch. In December 1943, neither the Mustang nor the early P-38J's had the extra 85 gallon fuselage and 55 gal LE fuel tanks in operational quantities. Accordingly both the P-51B w/75 gal externals and P-38J with 300 gallon externals could get past Brunswick - but well short of Berlin. The Depot installed kits for both fighters were installed in sufficient numbers in late Feb/early March to make Berlin (and Munich to Stettin in case of P-51B). By late March, enough P-47Ds had been Depot modified with wing racks and plumbing to attain P-47D-16 config and escort to Kassell/Brunswick/Stuttgart targets.

 

[michael rauls]

Of course, they're not useful to the Japanese, the A6M is a long range carrier aircraft, the Fw 190 and Spitfire are neither.

But I don't think that's the topic of this thread, we're not trying to replace the Zero. Instead we're looking at how the three compare. That's my take anyway.

Agreed on the topic of the thread but a comparison must take into account how good they were at there individual assigned mission not just how they would fair if they were to all meet somewhere at a pre determined location for a one on one dual. Imho.

 

[fubar57]

Wrong thread...doh!!!!

 

[michael rauls]

Wrong thread...doh!!!!

Very cool story though. Can't believe I've never heard that before.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

The Spitfires had the Merlin 46 but they had a defective CS prop that failed at high altitude due to freezing oil. 20mm cannon failures were common, and when one cannon failed the asymmetrical recoil would make accurate aiming nearly impossible. Many of the Spitfires that were shot down, were probably lost because their CS props were malfunctioning and/or their cannon failures exposed them to counterattack. The Spitfire could easily outpace the Zero in a dive.

The RAAF/RAF Spitfires were supplied with 30IG drop tanks, which CO Caldwell neglected to use initially, which proved disastrous. Caldwell's use of "big wing" tactics was also a major mistake. The Spitfire VIII, which was being supplied in large numbers to the USAAF in the ETO in mid 1943, due to their lack of capable fighters, was the obvious candidate for Australia, and it increased internal fuel capacity to 124IG, plus a 30/45/90 IG slipper drop tank.

The exchange rate was not 28-4, but was about 1-1, since the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the IJ bombers.

 

[pinsog]

The Spitfires had the Merlin 46 but they had a defective CS prop that failed at high altitude due to freezing oil. 20mm cannon failures were common, and when one cannon failed the asymmetrical recoil would make accurate aiming nearly impossible. Many of the Spitfires that were shot down, were probably lost because their CS props were malfunctioning and/or their cannon failures exposed them to counterattack. The Spitfire could easily outpace the Zero in a dive.

The RAAF/RAF Spitfires were supplied with 30IG drop tanks, which CO Caldwell neglected to use initially, which proved disastrous. Caldwell's use of "big wing" tactics was also a major mistake. The Spitfire VIII, which was being supplied in large numbers to the USAAF in the ETO in mid 1943, due to their lack of capable fighters, was the obvious candidate for Australia, and it increased internal fuel capacity to 124IG, plus a 30/45/90 IG slipper drop tank.

The exchange rate was not 28-4, but was about 1-1, since the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the IJ bombers.

Apparently when flown head to head the Spitfire could neither outclimb nor outdive a Zero. I would assume that the prop on the Spitfire in question was in working order or they would have mentioned it.

If your prop doesn't work because it's dusty, if your guns don't work because it's dusty, if you have to put a big giant filter on your engine that cuts performance because it's dusty and the other guy is flying in the same conditions except all his stuff works, then which is the better fighter?

The Zero they flew against had been rebuilt from some captured wrecks so I doubt it was museum quality.

Wildcats flying out of Guadalcanal would have loved to had conditions as good as Darwin and yet they had about a 1 to 1 exchange rate with the Zero not including the bombers.

 

[PAT303]

I'd suggest you read all the articles in the link I posted in regards to answering your questions, or not.

 

[PAT303]

That has nothing to do with the Zero or its abilities or flaws, nor does whether the floatation bags were removed or whether the pilots flew without parachutes, nothing whatsoever. And your statement about Sakai in a Hellcat, that's a bit obvious, but consider this, if Sakai was flying an A6M2 and a tyro flying a Hellcat and the two pitched themselves into a fight, I'd still put my money on Sakai in the Zero, frankly. And this is the point I'm trying to make - the Japanese didn't lose because of the diminished abilities of the Zero compared to aircraft such as the F4U or Hellcat; not at all. The Japanese lost through far more strategic reasons than no follow-up to the Zero and having to live with its flaws. Right until the very end of the war, US pilots were warned never to dogfight a Zero. That in itself was a credit to the design and ability of what was by then an obsolescent fighter.

It has everything to do the Zero's flaws, IJN carrier doctrine evolved around many of the inadequacies of their equipment or lack there off, the Zero, re it's light armament was one of them and that directly lead, combined with other problems such as poor damage control to the carriers being lost, that's a fatal flaw. The Japanese lost experienced pilots very early on in the war because their aircraft in general had a low survival rate after being hit, the air forces of all the other fighting nations put great emphasis on pilot survival even to the detriment of the aircraft's performance, the Zero gained it's agility by not being protected or protecting it's pilot, that's a fatal flaw. As to your comment on the Zero not catching fire easily, there's hours of gun camera footage/film of Japanese planes literally bursting into flames when hit.

 

[PAT303]

Sorry, man, I respect what you are saying, but the Zero's fate by the time the Allies introduced the Hellcat was sealed, regardless of this so-called 'fatal flaw'. It didn't matter if it was the most heavily protected fighter in the world, the result would have been the same. Japan didn't stand a chance by 1944/1945 because of the diminishing quality of its pilots and lack of resources, not because the Zero turned into a flamer. Had Japan been able to field better quality pilots, a more advanced aircraft to replace the Zero and better tactics, such flaws would not have been as glaring or easily exploitable.

Like I said in an earlier post, there weren't many fighters in April 1939 that had self sealing fuel tanks, armour plating etc, so by whose standards are you judging the aircraft on? The Zero was the equivalent of the F4F and the Fairey Fulmar in terms of carrier fighters. But, you put an ace like Sakai or Nishizawa in an A6M2 and a tyro pilot in a Hellcat and watch what happens. As I've said in another post, the US pilot having been bested by a well flown Zero isn't going to sit there as his burning aircraft spirals to the ground, saying "But his aircraft has a fatal flaw! I should have beaten it!"




There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted. There is a good write up about the fitting of armour to the Me109 in JG 26's diaries after their loses in the battle of France.

 

[PAT303]

There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted. There is a good write up about the fitting of armour to the Me109 in JG 26's diaries after their loses in the battle of France.

 

[nuuumannn]

There was not many planes in 1939 that had armour or self sealing tanks, but it was very quickly added on the production line after the war started and all in service planes, Spitfire/Hurricane/Me109 had it retrofitted.

Yup, as did the Zero - to correct this deficiency, the A6M5c had self-sealing tanks and armour plating. This version debutted during the Marianas Turkey Shoot, which surely demonstrated that the type's and the Japanese Navy air arm's days were numbered. Remember the Japanese didn't replace the Zero when they should have, and they kept it that way because to weigh it down would have nullified its advantages, they were also painfully aware of its disadvantages.

Look at it this way, in Saburo Sakai's book Samurai he describes over several pages encounters with Hellcats, where Zeroes are outnumbered, yet he still manages to shoot a few down and return. He acknowledges that Hellcats are superior to his own aircraft, but he still gets a few kills despite hard combat, where the Hellcats outnumber him and attack. Firstly, if this was a fatal flaw, surely if he got hit, his aircraft would have exploded, yes? Secondly, based on your logic, if the Hellcat could still be outmanoeuvred and be shot down by a Zero, then its fatal flaw was that it could be outmanoeuvred and shot down. But we know that's not the case though, is it.

As I've said, the Zero had a distinct advantage right until the end of the war, you should never dog fight a Zero. Every US Navy and USMC pilot was told this. To counter it, advantages such as high speed vertical manoeuvring had to be used. This exploited its weaknesses, its low foward speed and lack of altitude performance compared to more modern fighters. If you go into a combat arena against an opponent with superior attributes, you exploit its weaknesses to gain an advantage, one of which was its lack of self protection. Like I said earlier, even a Sherman with a 75mm gun could disable a Tiger tank if it shot it in the right place.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As I've said, the Zero had a distinct advantage right until the end of the war, you should never dog fight a Zero. Every US Navy and USMC pilot was told this. To counter it, advantages such as high speed vertical manoeuvring had to be used.

But why didn't Japan replace the Zero to counter these advantages? The IJAAF continued to recieved incrementally improved new designs. The IJAAF's Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar entered service around the same time as the A6M. But the IJAAF didn't stop with the Oscar, but followed it with the likes of the Ki-44, Ki-84, Ki-100 and Kawanishi N1K. Where was the Zero's successor? These later IJAAF aircraft had powerful engines, sufficient to cancel out the additional weight of armour and self sealing fuel tanks.

Obviously the A7M was too late, but the Kawanishi N1K was an IJN aircraft, first flying in floatplane form in 1942 - why wasn't that made into the Zero's successor?

 

[MiTasol]

Hi
Interesting reading here. Bardie Wawn was my father (died 1990). He was credited with ~4 3/4 so just under 'Ace' by definition. He had many probables noted.
FYI, he was involved in trials at Eagle Farm, Brisbane against a Japanese 'Hap' Zero Mk 2 fighter. Quite an intense trial by all accounts.
Interesting to note that when he landed, it was discovered that he'd put a 9 deg bend in the tail of his Spitfire.
Dad was also involved in the trialling of the original Cotton 'G' suit, designed by Professor Cotton, Sydney.

Attached is the full file that your document was extracted from and you will note two differences. Whoever copied the pages you posted did a far better job than the National Archives of Australia when they copied the file, and there is no note on the bottom of the first page.

Incidentally Sydney Cotton also designed the famous WW1 Sidcot flying suit and had a lot to do with developing aerial photography

 

[MiTasol]

The problem with the Spitfire V that fought those Zero's is they had no performance advantage. Below 20,000 feet they were actually a bit slower, climb was slightly in favor of the Spitfire but not enough to matter, and the Spitfire couldn't even dive away from the Zero because it accelerated too slowly in a dive. Most all US aircraft, even those generally outperformed by the Zero had some sort of escape plan, the P39 and P40 could both roll over and dive away (the P39 can't take many hits due to engine location) the Spitfire simply had no escape plan. I would rather fight a Zero in an Me109, they can 'bunt' into a dive and breakaway from a Zero at will.

Once Mrs Shillings Orifice was fitted to the Spitfire - well before Pearl Harbor - it could do negative G manouvres without the engine stalling so why do you say it could not bunt?

 

[MiTasol]

You need to remember that the Zero's range came from.... no armor, ....... self sealing tanks .

Nor did the early P-39s or P-40s (and many other US aircraft) have self sealing tanks in 1939/40/41 so they were not alone on that.

The vast majority of the USAAC aircraft in the Philippines (PI) at the start of the war had no self sealing tanks. As far as I know only the P-40E had them in the PI on Dec 7, 41 and that was pretty much the contemporary of the A6M5c Zero which also had self sealing tanks

The Americans had started fitting self sealing tanks because the British demanded them on the aircraft shipped to the RAF and the USAAC realized the Brits combat experience needed to be incorporated into the USAAC aircraft as well. Very few pre PH aircraft had them.