How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How do they know the tail wasn't already bent?, I'd bet a cartoon every single fighter that had seen combat and had been taking off and landing on dirt strips was not straight.
fubar57
General
"M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97" - "....At the time it entered service in the summer of 1944, the M18 was not capable of defeating standard tanks under normal conditions. Tank crew were obliged to perform extraordinary maneuvers to effectively engage the Panther. The M18 Hellcat had no firepower advantages over the M4 (76mm) tank which enjoyed better armor protection and a larger ammunition supply than the M18.....These design shortcomings combined with an unrealistic tactical doctrine meant that the M18 battalions were not primarily used for tank fighting (my bold), but were committed more often to improvised roles, usually direct fire support for infantry units. They were not ideally suited for this mission either...."
Apparently wasn't overrated by Spitfire V pilots over Darwin with a 28-4 losing ratio. Wasn't overrated by the test pilots that said "Spitfire was outclassed by Hamp under 20,000 feet"
Last edited:
Why don't you ask the guy who posted that post whose dad was the actual test pilot flying that Spitfire that day if his dad was too stupid to notice that the airplane he was about to test against a captured enemy fighter has a 9 degree bend in the tail before he took off. Wonder if he did a preflight inspection or if he just said 'nah, fuel and oil take care of themselves'. I understand arguing a point you disagree with, but trying to justify your favorite plane getting trounced by a plane you don't like by suggesting they did a head to head test with a fighter whose tail was already bent 9 degrees is just beyond ridiculous.
Slaterat is right on the nail here, the BoB would still be lost by the Germans, but not specifically just for the reasons stated in his post, but because the Germans lost the Battle of Britain as much as the British won it. Poor intelligence, a lack of solid information as to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, underestimation of the enemy, a lack of appreciation of the strategic situation as the battle unfolded. These are weaknesses that the British exploited, often unknowingly, often not, but the men of Fighter Command making the decisions, in hindsight did everything right in defending the country, - relying on radar and the established detection network to detect and intercept enemy aircraft as and when required, dispersing the fighters to satellite fields, dividing the country into sectors for regional defence and not throwing everything into every fight, rotating experienced squadrons and airmen for rest... When the chips were down, these decisions, combined with the Germans' lack of appreciation of the strategic situation enabled a victory. Aircraft choice and their individual strengths and weakenesses mattered to a point on a tactical level, but it was the big strategic decisions that won and lost the battle.
Actually, they haven't. I think you might be the only one who has used this phrase so far (apart from me giving an example of what the Zero wasn't). The Zero was considered overrated by no-one at the time. Remember, EVERYONE, every Allied pilot, US Navy, US Marines, USAAF, Royal Navy, RNZAF, RAAF were advised right until the very end of the war not to tangle in close combat with the type. That's not overrated, that's advising that even at this late stage, you could get your a** whipped by an inferior fighter if you weren't careful.
Last edited:
Thanks for the "attaboy", man, but if I did ever get a Zero, I'd have to hire a pilot to fly it. My flying days are over due to vision issues. Have been for awhile. But it was a fun ride while it lasted. I was lucky to have a wide variety of experiences rather than raking in the bucks for twenty five years driving the same airborne cattlecars back and forth. Had a taste of that with the commuter, which was kind of fun on a human scale, but not looking like a desirable lifestyle on a massive scale.
Cheers,
Wes
An airplane whose tail has been bent 9 degrees is too obvious to be ignored. How do I know? As a solo student pilot, I was assigned a C150 that was tied down next to one that had been destroyed in a freak mini tornado the night before. Walking toward the plane, something looked wrong, and after staring at it for a moment, realized the entire empanage was twisted slightly to the right. Our mechanic measured the displacement at 7°. If a student pilot could instantly spot that, how absurd is it to maintain a test pilot would miss 9°??
C'mon, man, your own pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in DAF, MedTO, SEATO, ANZAC, and around the world would gladly take you up on your bet and prove you wrong. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the world doesn't revolve around the Spitfire, or any other single airplane for that matter.
Cheers,
Wes
The 1st Fighter Group wasn't trying to shoot down Japanese fighters, it was trying to shoot down Japanese bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The actual exchange rate for 1 Fighter Group is 28-28, exactly 1:1.
The Spitfire I and Hurricane had a negative exchange rate against Luftwaffe fighters in the BoB for the same reason, does that mean that the Battle was lost?
Making such selective quotations is disingenuous at best.
Can you tell a planes tail is bent 9 degree's just by looking at it?, do pilots look for bent tails during the pre flight check?. Like I said, I bet every single plane that saw combat or was used on dirt/grass fields or flown by novice pilots who bounced them on landing would be bent to some degree.
Actually my world doesn't revolve around the Spit, I just think judging the type on what happened over Darwin considering the facts is a bit unfair, we aren't judging the Zero on what happened during the Marianas turkey shoot. I'm not a pilot but a close friend flew Cessna 310's and Fairchild Metro air ambulances and he often talked about bent and broken planes from landing on dirt strips, our Flying Doctor service uses widen sections of sealed roads because the damage to aircraft was getting excessive.
I get that they were trying to shoot down the bombers, but you can't just ignore the escort and cruise on past them and attack the bombers or your going to get shot down. If they shoot all of you down then there is no one left to shoot at the bombers.
In American football, the linemen aren't your target the quarterback is, but you have to deal with the linemen before you can get to him.
The escort has to be delt with somehow, either you need to be fast enough to blow past them without hope of them catching up, ie Me 262, or you need to tie them up with one group of fighters as the other group deal with the bombers. You can't simply ignore them.
The poor little underperforming Wildcat for all of 1942 had a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero according to The First Team. Many if not all of those battles were the Wildcat defending a carrier or airstrip against bomber attacks. The carrier being much more important considering you can't sink an airstrip. Yet they still fought the Zeros to a 1 to 1 kill ratio and usually decimated Japanese bombers once they got in among them.
XBe02Drvr says that even a student pilot should catch a 9 degree bent tail so yes I think you should probably give this line of argument. The actual test said 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp below 20,000 feet". Please explain how the Zero is overrated when there is essentially nothing a Spitfire can do under 20,000 to escape.
Kevin J
Banned
Essentially, the bombers are coming in above 20,000 feet IIRC, so you need Spitfire Trop with a Merlin 46 as opposed to a Merlin 45 optimised for below 20000 where it would outclass the Hamp.
buffnut453
Captain
The fighters weren't ignored but of 33 Spitfires, only one squadron's worth was directed to engage the Zeros, meaning the Spits were outnumbered by more than 2:1 by Japanese fighters. That may have been a tactical error by the formation leader, Caldwell.
At the end of the combat, 5 Spitfires had been shot down, another 5 force-landed due to poor fuel management and 3 had to disengage due to engine failure. All but 2 of the force-landed aircraft were repaired and returned to operations. In return, at least 6 Japanese aircraft were shot down so, even if we consider the force-landed Spits to be "combat losses", the results were still about 1:1 in that single engagement.
I've been slowly reading First Team: Guadalcanal and the Wildcats at Guadalcanal had a good coast watcher and radar warning system so were at 25000ft+ height by the time the Zero's arrived. F4F4 climbed at some 1500fpm vs A6M2 at some 3000fpm so it was a critical advantage the Zero lost.
The irony is that the Zero's were forced into there own fuel limit problems from flying from Rabaul->Guadalcanal during August->November 1942, they had about 20 minutes fight time over Guadalcanal and the new A6M3.32 couldn't even make the trip! Interestingly there are no US accounts of the "Hamp" been a tougher opponent than the earlier Zero.
The fighter interceptors were tasked with shooting down the bombers. They were defending against the bombers. It was the bombers that would destroy targets on the ground and kill the people you are trying to protect. To do this interceptors were prepared to, and often did, put themselves at a tactical disadvantage in respect to the escorting fighters. Interceptors often found themselves below the escorts but in a position to attack the bombers, any BoB pilot will tell you that. Some paid for this with their lives.
If you were on a coaster butting up the Channel, or in a suburb of London, or standing on a dock at Darwin you would be glad that your nation produced men who were prepared to do this.
You might want to look at the number of Spitfires available in NW Australia, or maybe look up the history of some of the engagements to get some kind of realistic perspective before making comparisons with US Fleet operations.
Your football analogy is, frankly, insulting. This was not a game, if those pilots failed in their job, people on the ground died. That is not the same as conceding a touch down. It might be worth thinking a little more deeply about what you are typing before you post it.
Duh!! If you routinely fly relatively "hot" landing GA aircraft like 310s and Metros ("lawn darts"), designed for paved runways, off from dirt strips and unpaved roads, you've got to expect damage. However, a GA aircraft, even a high performance one, is not a WWII fighter bomber, and not constructed to the same standards of ruggedness. Apples and oranges.
And if you read the narrative of the Spit Vc/Hamp trial carefully, you'll read that the Spit's tail was bent 9° DURING THE MANEUVERS. How you guys translate that to "the test pilot took off with a bent airplane, and thus was bested by an inferior opponent" escapes reasonable comprehension. Some cutting edge aircraft have developed reputations for being more prone than normal to getting bent from in-flight overstresses. F86 and Spitfire come readily to mind.
I think this horse carcass needs no further abuse.
Cheers,
Wes
All the men on both sides did heroic things because men in power were stupid and greedy. Making an analogy to football doesn't take away from any of these men's bravery.
If you only have x many planes, let's say 50, if you only have 50 fighters than placing them in a bad tactical position so they get shot down is not a wise position. If the target is your airfield then any flyable aircraft should be scrambled, all other aircraft, fuel trucks etc should be dispersed as best they can. Holes in a runway can be repaired, if you get your 50 irreplaceable fighters shot down then you are defenseless. Defending a carrier is a different matter, if it's sunk you have nowhere to land.
I am only defending the Zero here, but I'm having to attack the Spitfire to do it. The Spitfire was more or less equal to the Me109 until late in the war when the Spitfire really surpassed the me109. They traded spots several times but were more or less well matched opponents from 1939 to late 1943 or early 1944. After the Spitfire IX was introduced, I believe it was the same with the FW190. The problem with the Spitfire V fighting a Zero is it had no ace in the hole. If I had to fight a Zero over Darwin, I would have chosen an ME109 over a Spitfire because it could dive. Climb up to bomber altitude, make a gun run, split S and dive away. The Zero couldn't counter that move, it is essentially what the US fighters did. Am I super biased for American planes? Well let's see, a P39 or P40 couldnt even get to 28,000 feet, it would take an F4F-4 about 35 minutes to get to 28,000 feet (Guadalcanal pilots reported 40 minutes to 30,000 feet) and that leaves at that time, the P38 of which there were about 0 available for that area. So, looks like I'm calling it down the middle, American fighters at that time were too heavy and underpowered to even consider this interception except for the P38. The only other options to me would be F4F-3 which were out of production and probably all used up, or the P43 Lancer which needed armor (easy fix) and actual fuel tanks instead of wet wings (not really doable at all without a whole new wing).
So, in closing, do I hate the Spitfire? No. Do I respect the Zero for its abilities from introduction until mid 1943 when more powerful US fighters arrived (hellcat Corsair more P38's)? Absolutely
You could take this sentence and replace "Germans" with "Japanese" and "Britain" with "Midway" and "British" with "Americans", and not change its accuracy one whit. The common denominator?...over-confidence and contempt for the enemy's capabilities, AKA, arrogance and complacency. A lesson to all warriors from Sun Tzu to Crimea and Kurdistan.(And especially US Naval Aviators: "I'll take any man from any land at any game that he can name for any amount that he can count! [In my short ranged, ordnance limited, 7G, itty bitty jet]".)
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
