Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (2 Viewers)

[Pflueger]

Not looking for trouble here as a "junior member" but I think some of Foss's 26 kills were bettys/other ducks (I know you guys are aware of this already).

The fact that he did have at least "many" zero kills while flying a wildcat does tell you something though. I imagine there were tough times when he would have traded in his wildcat for a spit. If the venerable wildcat was able to hold its own against the zeke (grant it the thatch/weave innovation was essential) how can almost any spit model be thought to be inferior to the zeke? Looks to me that the handful of scrapes between the two provide an insufficient amount of data for decent comparison.

Guess if I need to land on carrier I'd take the zero though...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The fact remains that while the Zero was a formidable enemy, if you fought it above 300 mph it's maneuverability myth went out the window. As discussed in early threads it was felt by many that the Zeros and the P-51 were probably 2 of the most over rated fighters of WW2.

 

[JoeB]

Not looking for trouble here as a "junior member" but I think some of Foss's 26 kills were bettys/other ducks (I know you guys are aware of this already).

The fact that he did have at least "many" zero kills while flying a wildcat does tell you something though. I imagine there were tough times when he would have traded in his wildcat for a spit. ...

Yes some of his victory credits were bombers and other (eg. floatplanes, Foss himself was once shot down by the rear gunner of a Type 0 Observation Seaplane, aka 'Pete'). Moreover at that time of war Japanese losses were typically around 25-33% of what Allied pilots were credited with, not as accurate as in some theaters and periods in WWII (eg., it's not fair to compare that score *numerically* to ones credited to later Allied pilots under stricter rules ca. 1944-5). But relatively speaking Foss was an outstanding pilot, and at least as importantly, an outstanding leader. The overall accomplishments of F4F units in 1942 against Zeroes were better than anybody else's in that period of the war and Foss was a major leader at a critical time.

On the second statement this is the whole point of the Spit/Darwin discussion, when compared to the tactically similar F4F/Guadalcanal situation. The F4F's did a *lot* better, not a little better, both as measured by Japanese accounts. Seems hard to argue that the Japanese somehow decided to 'understate losses' more v Spitfires than F4F's (though there's no evidence they did so in either case, no more evidence than that the Allies did, ie. no evidence ).

F4F's in 1942 had an exchange ratio of just about 1:1 in fighter combat v Zeroes (on a scale of 100+ each), a little better considering just the G'canal actions. Spits had a ratio of something like 1:5 against Zeroes (and Oscars) over Darwin in 1943, combat losses only. Since it's a high ratio, of course it would mathematically change relatively a lot with one or two more Japanese losses (besides the 4 Zeroes and 1 Oscar apparently lost in all those raids), and it's a smaller sample (5 known Japanese fighters ~25+ Spits combat only) but no way close to 1:1.

Would Foss have eagerly traded his F4F for a Spit V? Would a modern observor who focuses on theoretical paper performance have done, probably; would Foss have?, I don't think that's so obvious actually.

Re: 'myth' it's always relative to what the conventional wisdom is. I think there's also a myth among some that there was a simple easy answer to combating Japanese Navy fighter units, and once the magical formula (boom and zoom, or other oversimplified description) was adopted the Zero turned into a pumpkin. I think the Darwin example shows the fallacy of that. Certain defeats of US fighter units in the Solomons in 1943 also show it. The Japanese Navy fighter units gradually declined from just about unbeatable (first 1/2 1942) to parity (from mid '42 w/ the best Allied fighter units, more generally by mid 43 with exceptions like the Spits at Darwin); to definite Allied advantage (from mid 43) to sometimes completely overmatched Japanese Navy units (which didn't happen often until 1944). There was no sudden bursting of a bubble.

Joe

 

[Glider]

Would Foss have eagerly traded his F4F for a Spit V? Would a modern observor who focuses on theoretical paper performance have done, probably; would Foss have?, I don't think that's so obvious actually.

Yes I think he would have jumped at the extra 50mph, firepower and climb and then done more damage than he could do with the Wildcat.

What matters more than anything is the pilot at the controls. The fact that the Spits at Darwin used the wrong tactics doesn't mean that the plane is worse than the Zero A6M2.

 

[JoeB]

Yes I think he would have jumped at the extra 50mph, firepower and climb and then done more damage than he could do with the Wildcat.

What matters more than anything is the pilot at the controls. The fact that the Spits at Darwin used the wrong tactics doesn't mean that the plane is worse than the Zero A6M2.

Just like I said, the modern observer focused on a few paper stats would, I'm not sure Foss would have or should have, or to what degree.

On Spits and F4F's in actual combat with Zeroes discussions often struggle to agree on the basic fact the F4F's did a lot better, although we do have enough facts for that to be quite obvious.

But we don't necessarily have the full facts to quantitatively analyze (encounter by encounter, move by move) in what exact way tactics differed between Spit units at Darwin and USN/USMC ones at G'canal, leaving alone the assumption that the Zero tactics were exactly the same in each case.

If you read detailed accounts of 1942 Zero v F4F combats, the F4F's did not in general use specialized anti-Zero tactics at that time that was mostly later on based on lessons learned in 1942, and tests of captured Zero near end of '42. And Zeroes often used hit and run tactics; afterall the F4F was not like later Allied planes faster but less maneurable than the Zero, rather, the two had generally similar aerodynamic performance except in climb where the F4F was pretty inferior, and high speed roll where superior.

Or are you just assuming again the 'invariant fact' that the Spit V was in a higher class than the Zero or F4F so it if showed up poorly against and relative to them in real combats it had to be completely something else, so it's just a matter of coming up with a plausible something else. Maybe the Spit V as practical combat plane was also not as good as it looked on paper against that type of opponent (I believe similar suggestion I made to you about the Hurricane and its failure v the Zero), and or in general not as good, the Spit V particularly, as the general legend of 'Spitfire' implies. How is that possiblity ruled out as a partial explanation too?

Because I didn't say in either case the consistent early to mid war failures of Hurricanes and Spits v the Zero *proved* either was worse in some inherent way than the Zero, but what proves they weren't, just a paper analysis? I don't see the logic in that.

Joe

 

[Glider]

The question being asked was would Foss prefer the Spit V to the Wildcat. As stated in my previous posting I believe he would go for the higher performance, do you have any evidence that he wouldn't?
Do you know many pilots that turned down the Hellcat (a plane closer to the Spit V) for the Wildcat?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well said Glider, I think any pilot of the day would of taken a Spit! - I also think the bottom line here is we could discuss combat loss/ claims all day as its quite obvious the Zero was driven from the air. The larger picture here was the fact that the Zero had many liabilities and its performance was severely limited above 300 mph. Tactics enabled P-40s and F4Fs to be able to deal with it, but like any fighter it could be deadly if flown by a skilled pilot on his terms. Again I remain, it was one of the most over-rated fighters of WW2.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Joe,

>But we don't necessarily have the full facts to quantitatively analyze (encounter by encounter, move by move) in what exact way tactics differed between Spit units at Darwin and USN/USMC ones at G'canal, leaving alone the assumption that the Zero tactics were exactly the same in each case.

With regard to the Spitfire tactics, I read a couple of comments on these by USAAF pilot Clay Tice, who flew P-40s with 9th FS (I believe) from Darwin. Clay typed these on Avsig forum while reading a book by the title "Spitfires over Darwin". (Unfortunately, I don't have his original posts anymore as the program that stored them ate the database.)

The comment I best remember is something like: "I'm glad we did not have any combat experience like the British and just scrambled at the first sign of danger, attacking the Japanese flat-out with no regard for formation tactics."

Apparently, the Spitfire outfit thought it could apply the lessons learned in the Battle of Britain, and they were not ready to listen to the pilots who already had experience fighting the Zero. They seem to have favoured radar over coast watcher reports though radar was unreliable and did not have the range of the coast watcher network, and along with the delay caused by assembling their formations, this usually left them in a poor position for an intercept.

At least, that's what I remember from that Avsig thread some ten years back - I'm sorry I can't offer anything more specific, but as the database is gone, I have to rely on my imperfect memory.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[WEMM]

these comtemporary articles may be of interest.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Spit_vs_Zero_Wawn.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/Spitfire_versus_Zero.jpg

 

[JoeB]

The question being asked was would Foss prefer the Spit V to the Wildcat. As stated in my previous posting I believe he would go for the higher performance, do you have any evidence that he wouldn't?
Do you know many pilots that turned down the Hellcat (a plane closer to the Spit V) for the Wildcat?

Do you have any evidence that he would, or should? I don't see how the F6F was similar to the Spit V in combat results against the Zero. So you're just repeating your thesis there, the F6F was 'closer' to the Spit V because similar speed, I guess? In actual combat v Zeroes the results of those two types were not comparable at all, F6F even more effective than F4F, Spit V very ineffective, against that particular opponent. So it just circles back to the same issue, you are basically saying simple paper performance comparison determines combat effectiveness (of the plane itself), I'm saying I doubt that. Not that simple paper stats have no influence, but their influence might be overstated. We should be a little more curious and look for possibly less tangible plane factors that also may partly explain a disparity like F4F/Zero parity in 1942, v Zero dominance over Spit V in 1943. (eg. against a new poorly understood opponent who turns very well, the best turning fighter may have an advantage, or the fact that F4F turned much better than eg. Spit or Hurricane or P-40 and did better might be a total coincidence; or the F4F's suitability for high deflection shooting [low nose], etc).

Re: Ho Hun, I agree there is some rough information on differences in tactics, but it's not very detailed, not always entirely consistent*. Usually it's simply assumed, plane A had better results, simple paper performance doesn't say it should, therefore the difference in tactics (or pilots or situation, etc) must explain *all* that difference.

*I wasn't saying there wasn't any info on F4F tactics, I've read a lot of it but don't want to drone on too long relating it. Main point is, there was no consistent universal set of F4F tactics v Zeroes in 1942. And the accounts of F4F/Spit disparity even at the time were on the basis of what was known from the Allied side only, the position from which some people still argue today , though with much less of an excuse.

Joe

 

[B-17engineer]

I am not sure myself,
I mean depends on variant, armament and speed.
A zero vs a spitfire I would like to see that to make a prediction I believe a Zero has got the SPit.
But a Fw-190 spitfire's fight. If the Fw-190 get behind your in trouble. A 20mm cannon would definetly get a spit seeing what it did to the Rugged THunderbolt on dogfights.

 

[Glider]

A spit V is about 50mph faster than the Wildcat, has twice the firepower and climbs better.

Are you saying that a fighter pilot would go for the wildcat? I don't know anyone that would.

Tell me why they would?

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

The only reason I could find is that the F4F is a little tougher and is a little more CV-savvy.

Other than that, it's all Spitfire. The RAAF spit V's were pretty bad though... not because they were Mk.V's but b.c they had many tech problems; corroded pipelines, bad oil distribution (and in a Spitfire and other planes of hydrodynamic prop design this is a BAD thing. You probably won't even have a chance to land), and the Volkes filter, designed for sand not tropical climate didn't help either. It just alowed down the plane, thus affecting its climb rate and range as well.

 

[WEMM]

in practice what was the top speed of the Darwin spitfires with their mechanical problems and vokes filters?

 

[Elvis]

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

Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?

Interesting question.
The Zero was basically built along the lines of an aerobatic stunt plane, then fitted with guns.
Certain design aspects gave it an advantage in dogfighting, but the Spit and the 190 were both quite manueverable as well...plus certain versions of the 190 and the Spit were way faster than the Zero.

I think this might be more of a case of who's the better pilot.



Elvis

 

[Pflueger]

Great discussion fellas,

True, pilot skills are critical, but an *"experienced" Spit or Fw 190 pilot would know that they don't have to tangle with the zero if they choose not to, if they choose to fight it can be on their terms (boom/zoom). The experienced zero pilot would not have the same luxury, if he could not lure the opponent into slow/turns he would know to start looking for a nearby cloudbank.

*How can we expect the Spit pilots defending Darwin to learn the same lessons regarding the zero in a matter of weeks which took the Wildcat pilots a year to figure out? They would have experienced the same losses flying Fw 190s (or practically any other ww2 fighter) if they chose to go into slow/turning fight with the zero.

Also: just noted that I capitalize "Spit" and "Wildcat" but not "zero." This may be a sign of bias on my part, I must make amends = the Zero certainly earned its caps.

 

[WEMM]

how do these battles compare to the Russian Japanese AF encounters at Nomonhan?

 

[Elvis]

How can we expect the Spit pilots defending Darwin to learn the same lessons regarding the zero in a matter of weeks which took the Wildcat pilots a year to figure out?

By "Darwin", I assume you're referring to Australia?
I don't think the Spits were available down under until '42 (if that's incorrect, please let me know).
Until then, the Aussie's mainly had the CAC Boomerang.
While a great plane in itself, it was about a step behind the Zero in just about all aspects, the least of which being respective climb rates.
I think general intel, by '42, would show that getting the Zero into a diving competition was the best way to beat it and I'm sure the Aussie's would've followed suit.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

...also, why does no one mention the Zero's replacement...The dreaded Tony?

I remember hearing about that plane when I was a kid and it seemed to be portrayed as being a tougher and more "muscular" Zero.
A much more formidable opponent.



Elvis

 

[WEMM]

I agree, the The Ki-61 was just that, stronger and with better dive and climd but it also had a number of problems, the mauser cannon had unreliable amunition the engine was also unreliable, probably due to its complex construction, and its production line was slow but when an alternative power plant was fitted the the Ha-112 radial engine, inspired by the fw 190 the result was probably one of the best fighters they ever had the Ki-100, an early battle resulted in the destruction of 14 Hellcats over Okinawa without loss, although it was slower than US fighters it would probably have been able to dive with the americans (I'm sure someone will have figures to prove or disprove this)