Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[Hop]

The results per each side's loss records were very heavily in favor of the Zeroes. They downed around 28 Spitfire V's v. 3 A6M's and 1 Japanese Army Oscar (they flew one of the raids).

To be fair the Japanese were usually escorting bombers, which the Spitfires attacked, so the enemy bomber losses should be included too.

They amounted to

6 Ki 46
1 Ki 49
5 G4M

The Spit losses *do not* include heavy operational (fuel and engine failure) losses they suffered, *in addition*. See Price "Spitfire V Aces" for one account of this.

Again to be fair they do not include those losses that are specifically attributed to accidents etc. In many cases the text does not make clear the cause of the loss (and in many cases it probably wasn't known)

 

[JoeB]

1. To be fair the Japanese were usually escorting bombers, which the Spitfires attacked, so the enemy bomber losses should be included too.

They amounted to

6 Ki 46
1 Ki 49
5 G4M

2. Again to be fair they do not include those losses that are specifically attributed to accidents etc. In many cases the text does not make clear the cause of the loss (and in many cases it probably wasn't known)

1. The Ki-46's were lone recon planes. It accomplished a military purpose to down them of course but didn't reflect on the Spit's capability v the Japanese fighters. When it comes to escorted bombers, one can say the escorting fighter is at a disadvantage (we had to protect the bombers, not worry about fighter-fighter exchange ratio!); or the attacking fighter is (we had to shoot down bombers, not worry about fighter-figher exchange ratio!), and both somewhat contradicting arguments have been used. But clearly it also benefits either fighter force in a prolonged escorting bombing campaign to attrite the other fighter force, and in contrast you are unlikely to actually accomplish the primary mission of attacking/defending the bombers if the other fighter force has the heavy upper hand in exchange ratio. As in this case, it adds info to list the bombers losses too, thanks; it also shows the Japanese bombers suffered pretty light losses, which must be viewed as a byproduct of their fighter superiorty. We know from other cases (eg. Guadalcanal) that those same J-bomber types suffered heavy losses when their fighters could not maintain the upper hand as they did at Darwin 1943.

2. True, cause is not always clear for losses during combat missions in that book, and it might not be knowable from any surviving source. But just to be clear it does not include the known operational losses, which over the whole deployment of those Spit units, including non combat missions, was pretty staggering.

The basic picture is clear: the Spits were pretty ineffective destroying Japanese fighters in that campaign, and not very effective against the escorted bombers either. They were however a serious threat to the Ki-46 Dinah type recon planes. And the presence of any significant Allied fighter force meant unescorted day raids were not practical. So when the fighters (the 202nd Air Group) were urgently needed elsewhere (New Guinea fall 1943) the day raids on Darwin had to stop.

Joe

 

[WEMM]

as I understand it, the spitfire MK VII was designed specifically to fight the Zero both the mark VII and Mark IX were superior in speed and kept high air speed making use of dive and climb tactics that the zero could not match, also the zero and zeke tended to become sluggish at very high air speed alolowing the spit to follow them.

 

[HellToupee]

From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.

Escort fighters get the tactical advantage over the interceptors.

as I understand it, the spitfire MK VII was designed specifically to fight the Zero both the mark VII and Mark IX were superior in speed and kept high air speed making use of dive and climb tactics that the zero could not match, also the zero and zeke tended to become sluggish at very high air speed alolowing the spit to follow them.

Mk VII was a very high alt interceptor, designed to fight things like the ju86 not the zero, and the IX was a recon variant.

Your probly thinking of the VIII, which was pretty much a normal fighter version of the VII deployed to the far east due to its improved range, or the Seafire XV first griffon seafire.

 

[Glider]

Suspect that you are getting your IX's a fighter mixed up with your XI's a PR version.

 

[Konigstiger205]

I have to give credit to the Japanese for creating such a great aircraft but I have no idea how would it be against a FW but FW was very good at intercepting bombers while the Zero was a fighter from its "birth"...

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The FW 190A would probably have torn the Zero to shreds. They had more powerful guns than the P-47 or P-38, and were as manuverable. The Zero would still have been able to outmanuver it in a close dogfight, if it could avoid the guns.

 

[JoeB]

From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.

I don't think you've read accurate accounts then. The Spitfires did terribly in fighter-fighter exchange, and didn't actually shoot down many escorted Japanese bombers either, see the specific losses on each side listed in posts above on this thread. Many Spit losses were mechanical but known operational losses are excluded from the losses given above. Some unknown cause losses on missions v Zeroes could have been operational, some of the handful of Zeroes and single Type 1 (Ki-43, Oscar) lost in the whole campaign might have been operational too. But no plausible unbiased accounting of loss causes would make the fighter exchange ratio less than several to one against the Spitfires (if it 'on principle' rejects one side's loss accounts while accepting the other's it's non unbiased ).

Each side's claims far exceeded the others recorded losses, which might be why you have the misimpression you do. Perhaps your un-named source assumed Spit claims =Japanese losses without knowledge of the Japanese accounts, that results in a very inaccurate picture in this case. Both side's victory credits exceeded the other side's account of their losses by factor of 3+ , but the factor was higher wrt to Spit credits against Japanese fighters specifically.

The major escorted raids which resulted in fighter combats were mainly against the Darwin region, and one main Japanese base at Timor was launching all those raids. The Spits had radar warning, as USAAF P-40's defending Darwin the previous year had also had, from March 1942.
The numbers of escorts and Spit's which scrambled for each escorted raid combat are as follows (from Price "Spitfire V Aces"):
March 2 1943: 21 Zeroes, 24 Spits
March 15: 26 Zeroes, 27 Spits
May 2: 26 Zeroes, 33 Spits
May 9: 9 Zeroes, 5 Spits (Spits intercept strafing Zeroes)
May 28: 7 Zeroes, 6 Spits
June 20: 22 Type 1 (Oscar), 46 Spits
June 28: 27 Zeroes, 42 Spits
June 30: 27 Zeroes, 38 Spits
July 6: 25 Zeroes, 36 Spits

Besides the invalid explanations covered above, sure, later model Spitfires would probably have done better, perhaps much better depending on model, but the Spit V model was the closest contempoary of the A6M2, which was the type that particular Japanese unit, 202nd Air Group, was still using in those raids; and apparently mostly the same planes they'd used in the previous year's campaign (as 3rd Air Group). The 202nd was based in a remote place (Timor) at the end of a long supply line, and obviously flying in the same climate, so those factors can't simply be treated as 'errors' or as if they only affected one side. If one side was affected more, an unbiased analysis must consider that at least partly a demerit to that side's aircraft.

Joe

 

[WEMM]

From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.

Escort fighters get the tactical advantage over the interceptors.



Mk VII was a very high alt interceptor, designed to fight things like the ju86 not the zero, and the IX was a recon variant.

Your probly thinking of the VIII, which was pretty much a normal fighter version of the VII deployed to the far east due to its improved range, or the Seafire XV first griffon seafire.

yes you're right, rushed posting, I was thinking of the mk V and MKVIII, after a bit of reading up, it was the MK VC used by the RAAF and the 1 RAF Sqn in the defence of Darwin, when the dive and climb method was used in 1943, and then the MK VIII was introduced in late 1943 with the retractable tail wheel and the stomburg carburetta that allowed negative G without the engine cutting, and that was superior to the Zero exept in the turn (although still inferior in all manouvers at low speed), these were used in the defence of Burma in 1944 mainly against the Oscar and the occasional Zero. In both cases once the tactics had been worked out the Japanese ultimatley failed in gaining air superiority despite very heavy losses on the allied side.

It seems that many of the spitfire victories were due to catching the enemy pilot unawares either diving out of the sun or due to fatigue, also some US pilots were of the opinion that the Zero pilots were a bit too predictable.

Apart from the dive and climb method I don't know if the Thatch weave was ever used by the spitfire.

ps would it be possible to get a scottish flag instead of the union jack?

 

[Wildcat]

JoeB, I'm interested in your sources for Japanese losses over Darwin could you please enlighten me on this document as I would be most interested in reading it. Also do you know of the Japanese losses and claims on the 10th of May 43? 457 sqn claimed 2 Zero's destroyed and 1 probable. This was a strafing attack against Millingimbi Is. I would be most interested.

 

[lastwarrior]

I guess the zero's have beaten the spitfires.

 

[WEMM]

if you're on your own and you meet 1 zero you're outnumbered

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

if you're on your own and you meet 1 zero you're outnumbered

How is that? Please explain why you think so. After that I am sure someone will explain why that is not true.

Besides the obvious fact that one on one is not outnumbered....

 

[JoeB]

JoeB, I'm interested in your sources for Japanese losses over Darwin could you please enlighten me on this document as I would be most interested in reading it. Also do you know of the Japanese losses and claims on the 10th of May 43? 457 sqn claimed 2 Zero's destroyed and 1 probable. This was a strafing attack against Millingimbi Is. I would be most interested.

As I mentioned (I think) the direct source was Albert Price's book "Spitfire V Aces", but AFAIK those numbers originally come from the relevant volume of the Japanese official history, 'Senshi Sosho'. There used to be an Aussie website listing them by mission, same source, same numbers, but it was taken down.

It's obviously still a senstive topic. There's clearly a strong desire among some to believe the Spits did better than the Japanese accounts indicate they did, or as I referred a tendency to question Japanese loss acounts but not Allied ones, which seems biased. We don't absolutely know that that J official history account is true and complete, but we don't absolutely know the Spit units didn't massage some of their combat losses to add to the large tally of their operational losses. I'm not saying they did, but who can prove they didn't?, IOW why set the standard or proof any differently in one case v the other. I think it's most likely that loss results reported by each side are approximately correct and mainly complete, not necessarily exactly correct and 100% complete on either side, but the Spit v Zero outcome wasn't anywhere close to even, a few more Zero losses isn't going to basically change it.

Anyway according to same source, Price, 1 Zero failed to return from the May 10 '43 mission, one of only perhaps 3 or 4 downed by the Spits in the whole campaign. And according to that book one Spit was a writeoff from combat damage on landing, so according to respective side's accounts that was the best outing landbased Spits ever had against actual Zeroes.

There were btw AFAIK no other encounters between landbased Spits and Zeroes except the Darwin raids. Somebody above mentioned 'occasional Zeroes' v later Spits in Burma but I know of no such case. There was one Zero unit in the Burma theater after initial Japanese conquest, 331st Air Group but in Shores "Air War for Burma" it's only mentioned in one action v RAF fighters, Dec 5 1943, when it downed 3 Hurricanes (claimed 6) without loss, (which was typical of the several Zero v Hurricane combats in 1942); otherwise it's just mentioned intercepting long range unescorted B-24 missions. So the Spit's Burma career is comparing a later plane than the Zero (later mark Spits) to a different plane than the Zero, the Type 1 (or Oscar); it doesn't seem too relevant to a comparison of contemporary models of Spit and Zero.

Joe

 

[Wildcat]

Joe, many thanks for the reply.

It's obviously still a senstive topic. There's clearly a strong desire among some to believe the Spits did better than the Japanese accounts indicate they did, or as I referred a tendency to question Japanese loss acounts but not Allied ones, which seems biased. We don't absolutely know that that J official history account is true and complete,

I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.

but we don't absolutely know the Spit units didn't massage some of their combat losses to add to the large tally of their operational losses. I'm not saying they did, but who can prove they didn't?, IOW why set the standard or proof any differently in one case v the other. I think it's most likely that loss results reported by each side are approximately correct and mainly complete, not necessarily exactly correct and 100% complete on either side, but the Spit v Zero outcome wasn't anywhere close to even, a few more Zero losses isn't going to basically change it.

If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations. I personally don't doubt the validity of their reports, I just wish we had similarly accessable documents from the Japanese side.

Anyway according to same source, Price, 1 Zero failed to return from the May 10 '43 mission, one of only perhaps 3 or 4 downed by the Spits in the whole campaign. And according to that book one Spit was a writeoff from combat damage on landing, so according to respective side's accounts that was the best outing landbased Spits ever had against actual Zeroes.

Thanks for that info, however Price is wrong regarding the Spitfire, it never actually landed instead P/O Little smashed into the ground whilst dogfighting a Zero, amazingly he walk away with only scratches and some bruises!

 

[JoeB]

I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.

If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations.

You and I in particular aren't worlds apart on this, but I have encountered what I view as obtuseness about this episode on the part of some. I'm no partisan for the JNAF particularly, I lived in Japan for a bit, read the language a little, but latter is mainly from studying Korean, and the Korean War is my real focus of air war research, I've mainly just read books about WWII.

My experience is that when you read the records of most air arms you get a feel that the loss accounting is probably pretty accurate, especially pilot losses. True in my experience of USAF, Soviet AF, a few precious captured North Korean air unit records I've found, etc. I've heard many insinuations that many countries supposedly extensively fudged loss records but no case where anybody has documented it. This was my point in suggesting the possibility the Allied records weren't accurate, what's sauce for the goose... what actual reason is there to think the Japanese account in Senshi Sosho isn't accurate? That the Spit claims exceeded those losses several to one?, that happened all the time in WWII, and is not IMO a valid reason by itself for skepticism about the Japanese accounts. The 202 AG claimed 101 Allied planes over Darwin (shot down high 20's Spits apparently), but it's not a valid basis on which to seriously doubt the Allied accounts IMO.

I see your point a bit, as researcher focusing on this campaing I'd consider it completely researched only after reviewing the original documents of both sides. But, as somebody just reading about it, I wouldn't actually doubt the basic correctness of the Spit losses in Allied official history type summaries, and I don't see a strong reason to doubt the raid by raid formation OOB and loss stats given in the Senshi Sosho either. And again back to the researcher point of view, I'm not sure it's valid at this point to say one is 'suspicious' of 'lack of accessible Japanese accounts', rather than just go track down the accounts used by the Senshi Sosho writers. But again as reader I just don't see why we'd assume the Japanese loss acount is 'not accurate'.

Another at least semi independent source is Hata and Izawa. Their "Japaneses Naval Aces and Fighter Units of WWII" has a named list of fighter pilot KIA's which gives only 2 over Darwin. The chapter on 202nd AG says three pilots altogether. The other guy would be whoever was lost in the incident we just covered, that's May 9 actually in the Price book, and another Zero crashlanded on return that day I notice. The other two losses were PO2C Seiji Tajiri March 15 and PO1C Yoshio Terai Sept 7. This agrees with the Price account as to losses, except he says the latter combat was Sep 13 not previously mentioned: 3 Type 100 Hq Recon planes ('Dinah') escorted by 36 Zeroes, intercepted by 48 Spits, 3 Spits and 1 Zero lost. The JAAF also lost a Type 1 ('Oscar')in combat June 20 (1Lt Shigeto Kawata per H/I's JAAF book, and another operationally June 22).

Another dilemma to actually saying it's likely those Japanese losses were significantly higher is this issue of pilots. It's a pretty big deal in Japan to honor war dead, sometimes controversially so. Who were the other guys lost? There's pretty limited scope for planes lost without pilots on ~500mile radius missions with no SAR function to speak of.

As to the details of the Japanese formations and their losses by date for all types, as opposed to proving their correctness, again the Price book in the Osprey series "Spitfire Mark V Aces" has that data.

Joe

 

[HellToupee]

yes you're right, rushed posting, I was thinking of the mk V and MKVIII, after a bit of reading up, it was the MK VC used by the RAAF and the 1 RAF Sqn in the defence of Darwin, when the dive and climb method was used in 1943, and then the MK VIII was introduced in late 1943 with the retractable tail wheel and the stomburg carburetta that allowed negative G without the engine cutting, and that was superior to the Zero exept in the turn (although still inferior in all manouvers at low speed), these were used in the defence of Burma in 1944 mainly against the Oscar and the occasional Zero. In both cases once the tactics had been worked out the Japanese ultimatley failed in gaining air superiority despite very heavy losses on the allied side.

The mkVIII was also used by the Australians replacing their mkvs.

Japanese were defending burma in 1944 allies were the aggressors, they employed such superior planes tho, p47s spit VIIIs even spit 14s etc oscars never had much hope of competing.

It seems that many of the spitfire victories were due to catching the enemy pilot unawares either diving out of the sun or due to fatigue, also some US pilots were of the opinion that the Zero pilots were a bit too predictable.

this was how the vast majority of all victories were scored, a spitfire when in trouble could escape in a dive easy enough as could zero using its manoverability.

 

[WEMM]

How is that? Please explain why you think so. After that I am sure someone will explain why that is not true.

Besides the obvious fact that one on one is not outnumbered....

I quote
"If your alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell. Your outnumbered"
Capt Joe Foss

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I quote
"If your alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell. Your outnumbered"
Capt Joe Foss

Yea - and he shot down 26 of them!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ill let Joe explain it. He allways seems to explain the Zero myth the best....