Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[Peter Gunn]

Lets agree to disagree, there are hundreds of accounts of pilots surviving because of armour protection, View attachment 562724
this is a good example, the only injuries the pilot sustained were splinters in his feet, the only part of him not protected by armour.

Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.

 

[rochie]

Great picture, now was that damage sustained in flight or a strafing attack, the pic is a little small to see but it looks to me that the canopy glass is shattered as well.

that happened in the air.

the Spitfire was delivered to the Sqn that day and almost immediately scrambled on an intercept, (they didnt even have time to paint on its Sqn and Aircraft codes ).
the spitfire returned very shortly after and was written off, its operational life was something like 16 minutes if i remember correctly (going from memory here )

 

[Peter Gunn]

that happened in the air.

the Spitfire was delivered to the Sqn that day and almost immediately scrambled on an intercept, (they didnt even have time to paint on its Sqn and Aircraft codes ).
the spitfire returned very shortly after and was written off, its operational life was something like 16 minutes if i remember correctly (going from memory here )

Awesome, thanks for the info, man, that looks like one lucky pilot there. I realize some say the Spit was a bit on the fragile side (I don't know and don't have an opinion) but I'd say that one was pretty tough.

 

[rochie]

Awesome, thanks for the info, man, that looks like one lucky pilot there. I realize some say the Spit was a bit on the fragile side (I don't know and don't have an opinion) but I'd say that one was pretty tough.

my pleasure.

i have it in a book somewhere, there's a small passage on it with details of pilot, Sqn etc, i will post it if i can find it

 

[pbehn]

my pleasure.

i have it in a book somewhere, there's a small passage on it with details of pilot, Sqn etc, i will post it if i can find it

Arent there two pictures, showing both sides? The other side cannot be described as a metal skinned monoplane, it is blown out like a balloon.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

 

[fubar57]

If that's s/n X4118/9 I wonder why its missing.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Watch from around 55 seconds, the bullet keyholes and deviates off target shooting through thin steel sheet, the same thing happened during the RAF testing, the bullets tumbled after entering the rear fuselage and hit the seat armour sideways giving no penetration advantage over the 303 guns.

Hello Pat303,

There are a few serious problems with coming to ANY conclusions from this test.
First of all, please note the incendiary burst that was noted on plates 3,4 which also show much larger holes before which there was no noticeable yawing.
Note also that the projectile was never actually stopped by the 18 gauge plates but simply started missing them when it veered off enough.

I won't argue that a .50 cal won't tumble because it obviously will, especially in a shallow angle hit against the aft fuselage of a Spitfire. One has to wonder though, if this is what happens with a 750 grain (? I don't know what the API weighs) bullet, what would happen with a 174 grain bullet moving even slower?
Note that the .50 cal is still ripping through all the 18 gauge steel until it missed the last plates. How much aircraft structure is as strong as 18 gauge steel?
What happens if we back up a couple hundred yards to actual aerial engagement distances? The heavier projectile gets relatively better because it retains velocity better.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Some surprising info in that chart. Most notably the later model p38s outroll anything( save one model of the p40) if you really keep it moving. Not what I would have expected to see.

Hello Michael Rauls,

The late model P-38 had hydraulic boost on ailerons. From what I have read and watched in descriptions, there was a noticeable lag in response before the aircraft began to roll, but the rate was VERY high once it got moving.

- Ivan.

 

[Mike Williams]

If that's s/n X4118/9 I wonder why its missing.

View attachment 562852​

It's X4110 with 602 Squadron, F/t Lt D. Urie - 18 August 1940 (602 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, Sandy Johnstone's Spitfire into War, various Alfred Price Spitfire Books).

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I would note that the British and Germans both used "spaced" armor on tanks long before shaped charges became common. The spaced armor again worked by causing the projectile to tip and not hit the main armor square and by sometimes causing the cap of capped projectiles to come loose before hitting the main armor.
This last "trick" was sometimes used on ships and a thin armour bulkhead or deck was referred to as a decapping bulkhead or deck in the path before the main armor was hit. There was some controversy on this and not all naval architects thought that was a better use of weight than one thick piece of armor.

Hello Shortround6,

At the risk of going way off topic, I believe the reason that those tanks used spaced armor was a bit different.
First of all, note that except for Pz VI (Tiger) and the frontal armor of Pz V (Panther), German tanks of WW2 tended to be relatively lightly armored overall.
The initial application of supplemental armor was typically on the turret and glacis especially on the Pz III which was getting outmatched in about every way possible.
The skirts and screens didn't come until a bit later.

I believe the British use of supplemental armor was also on their less well protected Cruiser tanks and not on their "Infantry" tanks.

I am not really a tank enthusiast but another observation is that German tanks except for Tiger and possibly Panther didn't tend to be particularly well armored. Even the post-war Leopard I was relatively lightly armored for a MBT.

- Ivan.

 

[fubar57]

The clip I posted says the aircraft, X4110 was shot down by a 109 and abandoned. The last number is either an 8 or a 9; notice how the number is almost closed at the top of the hatch.

 

[Mike Williams]

The clip I posted says the aircraft, X4110 was shot down by a 109 and abandoned. The last number is either an 8 or a 9; notice how the number is almost closed at the top of the hatch.

View attachment 562874​

I'm aware of all that. Check 602 Squadron's Operations Record Book or if you really want to get in the weeds go to the Imperial War Museum and pull X4110's Form 78.

 

[fubar57]

Why?

 

[Sturzkampfflugzeug]

How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?

Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?

The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Zero had little advantage over the Pacific really until the Battle over the Phillipines. But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.

I would recommend reading the preceding 33 pages of posts

 

[XBe02Drvr]

But the Zero wasn't as good as the Spitfire, Spitfires were way faster,and the Zero would not be able to tail a Spitfire easily. From 290 knots,the Zero was nothing compared to the Spitfire at 220 knots.

Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[RCAFson]

Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
Cheers,
Wes

The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.

The Spitfire V was deliberately limited to the actual conditions that Spitfires were flying combat under at the time. There would be no value in doing a test that "artificially" elevated the Spit's performance above those actually flying combat. Now if that exercise was an effort to "lobby" for an increase in boost limits, it makes sense, and apparently it worked, as the limit was raised from 9 to 16 pounds.
The "rated" horsepower derived in the UK in ideal conditions has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The Spitfire V that was tested was deliberately limited in performance and produced up to ~400hp less than the rated combat power of the engine.

Do you happen to have a link to that report again? I know I have it somewhere but can't seem to find it at the moment. I can find the result of tactical trials and the flight testing of HAP though.

- Ivan.