fubar57
General
Tick....tick....tick................
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
INCOMING!!Tick....tick....tick................
I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.
I'm not so sure. If you Google hoofs warbirds then compare a Spitfire I to a A6M2 then the Spitfire is clearly superior.Because the Spitfire did have poor acceleration. In Europe one reaction to the arrival of the Fw 190 was to increase cruising speed in contested air space, which did wonders for the Spitfire's already limited endurance. It seems that it was an issue from which the Spitfire suffered in regards to the 'Zero' too.
I'm not so sure. If you Google hoofs warbirds then compare a Spitfire I to a A6M2 then the Spitfire is clearly superior.
You're right, they are, but they're a direct paraphrase of the words of the pilots that flew the trials and regularly flew against the Zero in combat. Are you insinuating the author is cooking up a nonexistent shortcoming of the Almighty Spitfire? Does that shake the foundations of your temple? That happens to temples built on sand.
Cheers,
Wes
A Spitfire 1 with fixed pitch prop superior to an A6M2 with constant speed prop and many many many times the range? In what aspect????? And in what universe other than SIMULATIONS.
Best laugh I have had in years
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
"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...."
Bringing the Zero over the UK puts the Spitfire, as point defence fighter, into its element.If the Germans had had Zeros instead of BF-109s during the BOB, how much of an impact would it have had? How much more flexibility and capability would the Zeros superior range and the ability to stay in the fight longer have made? How much worse would it have faired with it's high speed maneuvering limitations and fragility?
And goes on to say: "...but not fast enough to avoid getting shot down before it could pull out of range." Rather poor performance for a sleek, V12 powered fighter that weighs 1400 lbs more than its blunt nose radial powered opponent, wouldn't you say?"Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster than Hamp in a dive."
I agree with all you said. In the quoted post I was responding to someone else. Starting from equal positions the Spitfire had very few cards to play against a Zero.How often did the Spit get the opportunity to exploit that capability against the Zero? If the Spit were flying an escort mission to some distant Japanese airfield and set the terms of battle-sure, it had plenty of opportunity to reach a superior altitude, and start the battle above the it. But...the Spit lacked the range to do so. It was primarily a point defense fighter, defending it's own airfields and nearby cities. As such, when it engaged the Zero it was usually climbing to do so-the Zeke starts with the altitude advantage, with the Spit at an altitude disadvantage. At least that is what I'd speculate-please correct me if it often started the battle with an altitude advantage, I might well be wrong.
On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941? Lots has been made about it's poor high altitude capability due to the lack of a 2-speed, 2-stage supercharger. But at that time, how were it's contemporaries in that regard? (for the sake of argument throw the FW and BF in that discussion as well). I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that it had a good roll rate compared to other fighters, was noted as a tough fighter for a water cooled one, and dove well.
I always enjoy these fighter comparison threads and learn a lot from everyone. But one thing I see ignored when discussing the "best fighter" is "best at what mission" and at what time of the war?
Here's a question for you. If the Germans had had Zeros instead of BF-109s during the BOB, how much of an impact would it have had? How much more flexibility and capability would the Zeros superior range and the ability to stay in the fight longer have made? How much worse would it have faired with it's high speed maneuvering limitations and fragility?
Who said anything about a fixed pitch prop on the Spit MkI? By all means disagree but don't augment a post with info that it didn't contain.
And goes on to say: "...but not fast enough to avoid getting shot down before it could pull out of range." Rather poor performance for a sleek, V12 powered fighter that weighs 1400 lbs more than its blunt nose radial powered opponent, wouldn't you say?
Cheers,
Wes
With the part about what if the Luftwaffe had A6ms I think you will find a wide range of opinions on weather that would materially affect the outcome of the BOB here.How often did the Spit get the opportunity to exploit that capability against the Zero? If the Spit were flying an escort mission to some distant Japanese airfield and set the terms of battle-sure, it had plenty of opportunity to reach a superior altitude, and start the battle above the it. But...the Spit lacked the range to do so. It was primarily a point defense fighter, defending it's own airfields and nearby cities. As such, when it engaged the Zero it was usually climbing to do so-the Zeke starts with the altitude advantage, with the Spit at an altitude disadvantage. At least that is what I'd speculate-please correct me if it often started the battle with an altitude advantage, I might well be wrong.
On a different note, how did the P-40 compare against the Spit or Hurricane in 1940-1941? Lots has been made about it's poor high altitude capability due to the lack of a 2-speed, 2-stage supercharger. But at that time, how were it's contemporaries in that regard? (for the sake of argument throw the FW and BF in that discussion as well). I believe (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that it had a good roll rate compared to other fighters, was noted as a tough fighter for a water cooled one, and dove well.
I always enjoy these fighter comparison threads and learn a lot from everyone. But one thing I see ignored when discussing the "best fighter" is "best at what mission" and at what time of the war?
Here's a question for you. If the Germans had had Zeros instead of BF-109s during the BOB, how much of an impact would it have had? How much more flexibility and capability would the Zeros superior range and the ability to stay in the fight longer have made? How much worse would it have faired with it's high speed maneuvering limitations and fragility?
Caldwell's tactics left a lot to be desired, but saying so invariably brings down the wrath of the Aussies. Great pilots, which he was, do not always make the best leaders.