One last time, as per here http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero the Darwin MkV's and A6M's were both rated at 334 Mph, yet here Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report a trop MkV fitted with the Merlin 45 was faster than the A6M and the Darwin MkV's at 337 Mph with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted, this spec MkV ticked every box in regards to fighting over Australia, with 4 20mm cannons this standard MkV was 40 mph faster Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report. As you can see, judging the MkV on just the Darwin battle is not a true indication of its performance.
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
One last time, as per here http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero the Darwin MkV's and A6M's were both rated at 334 Mph, yet here Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report a trop MkV fitted with the Merlin 45 was faster than the A6M and the Darwin MkV's at 337 Mph with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted, this spec MkV ticked every box in regards to fighting over Australia, with 4 20mm cannons this standard MkV was 40 mph faster Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report. As you can see, judging the MkV on just the Darwin battle is not a true indication of its performance.
But the Spitfire accelerated much much slower. Top speed matters little if the bad guy drops down on your tail and stays there long enough to dump a 5 second burst of cannon and machinegun fire into your plane. A P40, for all it's problems, if a Zero drops into your tail you immediately roll into your back, the P40 far exceeds the Zero on roll, pull back on the stick and drop like a rock (it ought to dive it couldn't climb worth anything) by the time the Zero rolled over the P40 was gone. It doesn't matter about how bad the P40 sucked at anything else, it had a bug out plan when things went south. The Wildcats plan was to wait until someone shot the bad guy off your back and hope it holds together (how encouraging to the poor guys flying it). The P39 was as screwed as the Spitfire, the engine was in the back so if it reviewed just a few hits it's going down.
Do you see that I'm not just maligning the Spitfire?
Besides the P38 we didn't have a plane that could fight a Zero on equal footing. A P36/Hawk 75 with a 2 speed P&W 1830 (which they never installed in one) might have been a good choice in my opinion (I'll get pushback on that from several) because of its awesome maneuverability. It did well against the slower Ki43, but it's altitude performance with a single speed P&W was awful.
I agree that the FW190 was beyond the Zero's capability if flown like a P38, climb, dive through firing, extend away and zoom back up. Same for the ME109, fly it like a P40 that could actually get up to altitude, dive through firing, extend away, zoom back up. Almost any fighter that can climb to altitude and has a good dive and roll could do well against a Zero
IMO A capable pilot works wonders - everything being equal - the advantages the zero possessed were at the expense of armor protection,self sealing gas tanks,and making everything as featherweight as possible - this is what made it a good nimble dogfighter - the light weight also enabled the long range..Against earlier marks of Spit? All things equal the only real advantage i see it having is its lightweight contributing to its nimbleness - so knowing this a competent combat pilot would'nt get into a turning dogfight with one - As would probably be true for the 190 which IMO is a head and shoulders better aircraft -Its superior speed 4 20mm cannons and 2 14.7 mg's would make quick mincemeat out of the zero -
Shortround6
Major General
For a good comparison between the Spitfire and the Zero we need time lines showing
1. the dates different Zeros went into operation (not prototypes)
2. the dates different Spitfires went into operation in England (again not prototypes)
2b. the dates different boost limits were used by Spitfires
and last
3. the dates different Spitfires reached the far east and the boost limits they operated under.
Please note that there is a considerable difference between 2 and 3.
The Darwin Spitfires had Merlin 46 engines (mostly) which while better over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 were often around 100hp lower in HP below 20,000ft when operated at eh same boost pressures. They were also limited to 9lbs of boost (at least that was what was used in the test?) so using similar manifold pressures to what was being used in Europe might have made considerable difference (it might also have worn out engines quicker).
The Zero was falling behind on the world stage but then the Allies were not sending the 1st class fighters to the far east (or at least not sending the newest and best) until late 1942 or early 1943.
1. the dates different Zeros went into operation (not prototypes)
2. the dates different Spitfires went into operation in England (again not prototypes)
2b. the dates different boost limits were used by Spitfires
and last
3. the dates different Spitfires reached the far east and the boost limits they operated under.
Please note that there is a considerable difference between 2 and 3.
The Darwin Spitfires had Merlin 46 engines (mostly) which while better over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 were often around 100hp lower in HP below 20,000ft when operated at eh same boost pressures. They were also limited to 9lbs of boost (at least that was what was used in the test?) so using similar manifold pressures to what was being used in Europe might have made considerable difference (it might also have worn out engines quicker).
The Zero was falling behind on the world stage but then the Allies were not sending the 1st class fighters to the far east (or at least not sending the newest and best) until late 1942 or early 1943.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
The A6M would not have been ready for the BoB, seeing as it entered service in JAPAN during the same summer. If the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Japanese aircraft, they would have been stuck with A5M's or Ki-27's….all these points you guys bring up has me wondering how the BoB would've turned out, if the Luftwaffe had augmented their 109's with Zero's...hmmm...
A late comer to this thread... but I'll add a thought. I played IL-2 Sturmovik online like a true addict. We had a scenario that pitted Spitfire Mk.V against the A6M3 over Burma or something. The Spitfires kicked butt. If a Spit got caught low and slow then the Zeke guys had a chance. The Zero's poor roll rate made even low and slow hard.
buffnut453
Captain
Not according to http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=2-raaf-air-combats-in-nwa. 2 Ki-46's and 1 Zero lost to Spitfires prior to 2 May and their were no Japanese losses on that date. During the daylight raids I make it 11 G4M's, 3 Ki-49's, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki-43 shot down or written off. Spitfires also accounted for 7 Ki-46's, an A6M-2N, and a G4M (at night).
Three of the Spitfire losses were due to return fire and 1 crashed taking evasive action.
This from the actual test between a Spitfire mark V Tropical and a Hamp:
"Unanimous conclusion is the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet" that is from the 2 test pilots that flew the 2 planes in the test. We have the son of the Spitfire pilot that said his dad said he bent the tail of the Spitfire 9 degrees while doing this test. I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn't in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn't up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn't care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft. A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England, but if your driving across a 500 mile long dirt road in the outback your probably better off in a old Jeep, Land Rover or Landcruiser.
"Unanimous conclusion is the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hamp at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet" that is from the 2 test pilots that flew the 2 planes in the test. We have the son of the Spitfire pilot that said his dad said he bent the tail of the Spitfire 9 degrees while doing this test. I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn't in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn't up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn't care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft. A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England, but if your driving across a 500 mile long dirt road in the outback your probably better off in a old Jeep, Land Rover or Landcruiser.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
"A Ferrari is faster on a paved highway in England"
I dunno, I had a 2014 Stingray and on paved roads, both it and any Ferrari were no faster than any other soccer mom SUV in bumper to bumper at rush hour...
I dunno, I had a 2014 Stingray and on paved roads, both it and any Ferrari were no faster than any other soccer mom SUV in bumper to bumper at rush hour...
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Your Ferrari/Jeep analogy is perfect here in my opinion. It's not nescesarily that the A6M is a superior plane, it's that it was superior under those conditions.
I think this applies to an awful lot of comparisons of ww2 aircraft. What's better, an Fw 190 or a P38? Well if the war is 100 miles away probably an Fw190. If its 500 miles away it would be a p38. Or what's better a P47 or a Hellcat? Well if you need to fly off of a carrier id go with the F6f. If not the P47 is probably the better choice.
buffnut453
Captain
Well if you're going to selectively quote from the report, then here's another "The Zero could not get into a firing position behind the Spitfire if the latter evaded in diving aileron turns at high speed". That's EXACTLY the point I was making...that the Spitfire had better high-speed manoeuverability. So where does that leave your "the Spitfire didn't have an ace in the hole" comment?
A couple of other selective quotes "A vertically-banked climbing turn was difficult for the Zero to follow" and then there's the "up to 20,000 ft" issue. Bottom line is the Spitfire need to start high (ie above 20,000 ft) and use high-speed diving attacks. When it's already diving at speed, then the acceleration issue is moot.
Again, I'm not arguing which aircraft was better, simply pushing back against your very definitive and absolute statements that the Spitfire had no successful tactics against the Zero compared to the P-40 and F4F. I'm afraid that's just bogus, as the above report states.
Admiral Beez
Captain
I wonder if the Japanese would have done better in the Pacific War if they had some early defeats or big scares. Perhaps a major IJN defeat at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904, or even more recently, losing a carrier to RAF attacks during the April 1942 Ceylon raid. The Japanese need to be pushed to respect their enemy.
I'm not sure "fly straight and jink up and down until the Zero runs out of bullets or someone shoots him off of you" is a real feather in the cap of an F4F-4. It somehow scratched out a 1 to 1 exchange with the Zero, but that wouldn't instill a lot of confidence in me. The P40 had a legit get out of jail free card to play, the P39 didn't, the P38 was what was needed.
Your correct, above 20,000 feet of the Spitfire started out 3,000-4,000 feet above the Zero then it dive, shoot and zoom back up with impunity. Awesome, almost any reasonably comparable 2 fighters could do that to each other. A Zero could do that to a Spitfire, P38, Hellcat or Corsair. An Me109 or FW290 could do that to any US or British fighter if they were low enough they couldn't dive away.
Read that report: the Spitfire could climb slightly better and dive a little better, but the Spitfire could not do either well enough to evade being shot down by a Zero
Kevin J
Banned
I have a 161 mph sports saloon, average speed recorded is 19.1 mph.
The Spitfire in the above test was limited to 9lb boost, which placed a tremendous performance handicap on the Spitfire; 290 knots (at 15k ft) = 334 mph or about 32 mph slower than at 16lb boost. It's no wonder that the Spitfire put in a poor showing and showed low acceleration. In the RAF the Merlin 46 was approved for 16lb boost by Jan 1942:
and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg
about a 400hp loss of power at 15k ft.
SEE MY POST HERE:
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
FOR MORE INFO ON THE TACTICAL USE OF 16LB BOOST IN MID 1942.
Last edited:
I understand that. I addressed that in the part where I said: post #432
"I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn't in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn't up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn't care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft."
See I addressed the higher boost. If it was that simple, why didn't they simply turn up the boost? Apparently that was done on Russian P39's, P40's about everywhere and Allison engine P51's. If I was a commander or a mechanic or another pilot watching my pilots and friends fall out of the sky right and left, I would have reset the boost regulator on the Spitfire. Does the filter keep you from running more boost? If not, why didn't they simply adjust them to have more boost?
