Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
The 100 must've been the one I heard about.
Thanks for the info.
Elvis
Thanks for the info.
Elvis
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
Glider
Captain
Small point but the Ki61 being an Army aircraft, wasn't the Zero's replacement. The Zero's replacements would I think have been the Shinden and the Raiden
But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in any action between single formations (not counting, say, all F6F's lost in combat in the whole battle of Mariana's or something, in one single air combat I mean), or F4F's.
Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.
That argument is always going to be opinion, but if we could once and for all establish, that Spit v Zero wasn't a 'what if', it happened across a series of combats over several months and the Spits did consistently poorly...if that fact just gets firmly established, and minus completely baseless excuses (no radar, not true; outnumbered, not true; caught taking off not true etc) at least that's something
Joe
But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in a single combat ever, or F4F's.
Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.
That argument is always going to be opinion, but if we could once and for all establish, that Spit v Zero wasn't a 'what if', it happened across a series of combats over several months and the Spits did consistently poorly...if that fact just gets firmly established, and minus completely baseless excuses (no radar, not true; outnumbered, not true; caught taking off not true etc) at least that's something
Joe
But here we're doing the 'Spit did OK over Darwin' type thing in the other direction. That claim actually occurred right near the end of the war over Japan itself, July 25 1945. It was the 244th Sentai, they claimed 12 F6F's for two losses of their own. Their actual opponents VF-31 only lost 2 F6F's. The Japanese claim is frequently reported as if an actual result, and then it seems like the Japanese loss and claim get added together in less reliable accounts, that's not your mistake I've seen it elsewhere, but that's not what happened. Not to say the Ki-100 was a bad airplane necessarily, but it never had actual success like that, no Japanese fighter ever downed as many 12 F6F's in a single combat ever, or F4F's.
Back to Spit v F4F, *on paper* I'd rather have the 50mph, twice the firepower is debateable but let's not get bogged down. But if I could review the results, and see F4F's fought Zeroes evenly in 1942, but Spit V were consistently beaten by them in 1943, wouldn't this logically cause me some pause in taking the paper comparison as predictive of combat results? And as a pilot actually succeeding from my perspective in an F4F (the F4F's were claiming a lot more Zeroes than F4F's lost; just as the Spit results didn't look as bad considering their similarly or more overstated claims, rather than actual Japanese losses), I might just stick with it.
That argument is always going to be opinion, but if we could once and for all establish, that Spit v Zero wasn't a 'what if', it happened across a series of combats over several months and the Spits did consistently poorly...if that fact just gets firmly established, and minus completely baseless excuses (no radar, not true; outnumbered, not true; caught taking off not true etc) at least that's something
Joe
I still think equipment failure was a big factor, there are reports of many mechanical problems, guns jamming and lack of fuel and don't forget many of the Australian pilots were not experienced, at least not at first.
a full report can be seen by Clive Caldwell here
The day the planes "all fell into the sea": Darwin Raid 54-2 May 1943. Industry Business Article - Research, News, Information, Contacts, Divisions, Subsidiaries, Business Associations
Any modern plane has a chance to beat another type if the circumstances are favorable and the pilot or pilots in question can utilize them and/or fight the type of battle that best suits his plane.
Yeah, i know thats hardly a revelation, but given the propensity to argue over stats it bears reminding now and then. Its also relevent when considering another type of matchup. Spitfire VIII vs Ki-43II. The stats would favor the Spit, yet in the mid-late war battles over India and Burma, the Oscar managed for a time to hold it's own against this plane as well as P-51A's and P-38's....until the ever increasing crush of modern Allied airframes coupled with losses on the Japanese side turned the tide completely.
So myself, keeping that campaign in mind, I certainly think the A6M can beat a Spit or a 190....and it did in the former's case. Not every time but leafing through my copy of Fire in the Sky, I dug up this commentary:
The RAAF also commanded three squadrons of Spitfire V's at Darwin. Eventually nearly 100 Spitfires were brought in and kept up to strength, on paper at least, for some months. Several of the pilots had seen extensive combat in the European theater and were among the best prepared airmen in the South Pacific. Although the Spitfire squadrons landed some stinging blows to Japanese raiders from Timor, their overall preformance was a disapointment. In theory the Spitfire V should have matched up well with the Zero. Carrying a mixed armament of 20mm cannons and rifle caliber machine guns the Spit had more than enough firepower to deal with any Japanese aircraft. Although no aircraft was as maneuverable as the Zero under 15,000 feet, the Spitfire was considerablely more nimble than any U.S. fighter.
The section goes on to describe the maintenance issues the Spit squadrons had at Darwin, leading to a greater % of grounded planes vs. a typical P-40 squadron. Radar and issues with vector are mentioned. Finally it is mentioned that the ceasing of the raids in mid 43 was not due to defeat over Darwin but developments elsewhere. I have also read that a problem the Spit pilots had (at least initially) was getting rid of the tendancy to accept turning fights. In the ETO from day 1 they were used to having the better turning fighters vs their German adversaries but in the PTO it was reversed. Sometimes you can be told something (of which they were warned....."never turn with a Zero!"), and yet still have to learn it for yourself.
So I think it was the whole range of variables that lead to results seen, just as the unique set of variables at Lunga led to the results witnessed there.
The zero was not a great aircraft.
Not bad, but not nearly as great as some would suggest.
The zero sacrificed a lot to be nimble. As long as "nimble" was a major factor in a fight, the Zero did well. When fast and rugged Allied aircraft decided to not play the "nimble" game, the Zero quickly became a victim waiting to happen.
When comparing the Zero to the early Allied aircraft it faced, I often say "The Japanese mediocre fighter was better than our mediocre fighters". The Zero, the P-40 and P-39 were not "bad", but they sure as heck were not in the same league as the Fw-190 or Spitfire (unless the Spitfire or Fw-190 decided to play the "nimble" game with the Zero.....)
When a fast and rugged opponent played on the weaknesses of the Zero, it was ugly. I describe it as "they basicly poured avaition fuel on themselves due to not having self sealing fuel tanks, and we lit on fire with incendiary ammo". With faster higher flying aircraft, the Allied aircraft could pretty much dictate combat most of the time.
Having said all that, the Japanese did make some truely 1st rate aircraft. The Ki-84 Hayate (Frank) being the best, and the N1K2-J Shiden (George) and Ki-100 Hien (Tony) also doing well.
The Japanese made the same mistake that Italy did (Fiat C.R.42 Falco), although not to the same degree. Both Japan and Italy made a "less than first rate" aircraft due to a belief in the importance of being nimble, but the Japanese at least had the sense not to build a bi-plane.
Not bad, but not nearly as great as some would suggest.
The zero sacrificed a lot to be nimble. As long as "nimble" was a major factor in a fight, the Zero did well. When fast and rugged Allied aircraft decided to not play the "nimble" game, the Zero quickly became a victim waiting to happen.
When comparing the Zero to the early Allied aircraft it faced, I often say "The Japanese mediocre fighter was better than our mediocre fighters". The Zero, the P-40 and P-39 were not "bad", but they sure as heck were not in the same league as the Fw-190 or Spitfire (unless the Spitfire or Fw-190 decided to play the "nimble" game with the Zero.....)
When a fast and rugged opponent played on the weaknesses of the Zero, it was ugly. I describe it as "they basicly poured avaition fuel on themselves due to not having self sealing fuel tanks, and we lit on fire with incendiary ammo". With faster higher flying aircraft, the Allied aircraft could pretty much dictate combat most of the time.
Having said all that, the Japanese did make some truely 1st rate aircraft. The Ki-84 Hayate (Frank) being the best, and the N1K2-J Shiden (George) and Ki-100 Hien (Tony) also doing well.
The Japanese made the same mistake that Italy did (Fiat C.R.42 Falco), although not to the same degree. Both Japan and Italy made a "less than first rate" aircraft due to a belief in the importance of being nimble, but the Japanese at least had the sense not to build a bi-plane.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
If you play to any plane's weaknesses, it's going to come off as "mediocre" (possibly even , "inferior").
I'll give you, that it wasn't as ruggedly built as some other planes of the WWII era, but its an older design, too.
In the time it was designed, "nimbleness" was still considered paramont.
Why? Because the only example we had to look at was the performance of WWI fighters. where tactics were all about twisting and turning, in order to get on the enemy's tail.
I think that the fact that the design made as good a showing of itself, as it did, for the duration of the war, is a testament to how well that plane actually worked.
Would you consider an ME-109 or a Brewster Buffalo "mediocre", as well?
I think both the German's and the Finn's would beg to differ.
Elvis
I'll give you, that it wasn't as ruggedly built as some other planes of the WWII era, but its an older design, too.
In the time it was designed, "nimbleness" was still considered paramont.
Why? Because the only example we had to look at was the performance of WWI fighters. where tactics were all about twisting and turning, in order to get on the enemy's tail.
I think that the fact that the design made as good a showing of itself, as it did, for the duration of the war, is a testament to how well that plane actually worked.
Would you consider an ME-109 or a Brewster Buffalo "mediocre", as well?
I think both the German's and the Finn's would beg to differ.
Elvis
Thread goes back to the usual recitation of vague conventional wisdom based on Allied-only accounts, big surprise. Read the thread from the beginning. Spit V's faced Zeroes in quite a number of combats over a number of months in 1943. They were consistently beaten, despite claiming to have changed their tactics to 'hit and run' and claiming to have done much better once they did. The Japanese accounts of losses don't bear that out, and in fact 'the other side's' accounts seldom fully bear out claims of success by *any* air arm in WWII. You simply can't evaluate WWII air combat based on one side's accounts, let alone vague generic summaries of them.
So the Zero was 'mediocre and sure as heck not in the same league as the Spit V', but Zeroes in the campaign downed around 25 Spit V's for the loss of 4 Zeroes. That's just a funny definition of 'not in the same league' IMO, even considering the tactical issues. If one fighter is really 'in another league' from another, it should be able to do reasonably even without optimum tactics. By my way of thinking, an outcome like the actual Spit V v Zero in 1943 pretty much rules out saying the Spit V was in another league, I just don't see a rational basis for that statement given the actual result. Once again it *does not* mean the Zero was the better plane, just that it was probably pretty close in capability, at least, to the Spit V if it could score that kind of result in a pretty long series of combats.
Again more than 'myth' on either side, this topic suffers from IMHO a lack of curiosity about actual outcomes.
Joe
As I stated above, pretty much any aircraft that engaged a Zero in a fight where "nimble" was a key factor was probably going to lose, be it a F4U, an Fw 190, a Spitfire, a Ta152, etc.
But once the F4Fs, P40s and P39s ceased to be the main opponents of the Zero, and F6Fs, F4Us, P38s, P47s and P51s became the main opponents, the zero was at a hard core disadvantage.
When an opponent has it entirely in his power to avoid combat and force combat, and is more rugged and has better firepower and is faster and higher flying, the aircraft only has "nimble" to oppose all that is NOT in the same league, "conventional wisdom" or not.
And if the Zeros still scored some successes, it was due to factors such as "pilot quality", "foolish enemies", "surprise", etc. ANYTHING can score some victories with those advantages.
But once the F4Fs, P40s and P39s ceased to be the main opponents of the Zero, and F6Fs, F4Us, P38s, P47s and P51s became the main opponents, the zero was at a hard core disadvantage.
When an opponent has it entirely in his power to avoid combat and force combat, and is more rugged and has better firepower and is faster and higher flying, the aircraft only has "nimble" to oppose all that is NOT in the same league, "conventional wisdom" or not.
And if the Zeros still scored some successes, it was due to factors such as "pilot quality", "foolish enemies", "surprise", etc. ANYTHING can score some victories with those advantages.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Zero was only "nimble" below 300 MPH. Above that speed it was a brick in the air and tactics defined its demise.
For myself, I consider the A6M to be one of the great aircraft designs of WWII. That it had a shorter shelf life than other notable examples and was superseeded by 2nd generation aircraft to me doesn't change that opinion. It was a brilliant design that allowed a nation suffering a serious technological bottleneck to end around that problem for a time and produce a design (two designs actually) that constituted a pinnicle reason why they were able to acomplish the early feats that they did. (the other plane was the Ki-43) Some sources state that without the A6M, Japan could not have launched her SRA and subsequent operations. That, and what it was able to do, does not speak to me of a mediocre design.
Yes it did have weaknesses that could be exploited. I'm not aware of any WWII aircraft that didn't. It can be argued that it's weaknesses were more exploitable over time. That has merit as any aircraft that is going to fight a sustained attrition war needs armor and self sealing fuel tanks, thus the design was doomed to be obsolecent within 2 years. Regrettably, the Japanese design could not retro-fit it due to the technological limitations (engine HP!) which in turn forced Jiro Horikoshi to cut weight as far as possible. (it bears reminding that at the time of the Zero's design (1940)...most other aircraft, most notably the F4F, also did not sport either defensive upgrade - armor and ss tanks) For this reason, lack of upgradability of the airframe, the A6M (and Ki-43) always get ranked under planes like the Spit, 109 and 190...airframes that allowed upgrading producing more powerful designs that could fight on even terms more or less in later war years. Nevertheless...with a pilot who knew what he was doing, the Zero never stopped being a potentially dangerous opponent. That leads to another factor....pilots. Japan had the smallest cadre of well trained pilots and her program to replace was jump started too late to have any hopes of meeting the demands of an attrition war in time. Thus the Zero and other planes were made "mediocre" all the faster due to who was at the controls. (Same thing eventually happened to Germany only it took longer.....in the end it doesn't matter what the stats of the plane are if you have a newbie in the cockpit)
That the P-40 could fight a Zero doesn't make the Zero medicore. It means that the P-40 design itself was not nearly as bad as older histories tended to make it. The P-40 was not a spectacular design, but it was a solid one built on proven technology and like the F4F, it could take a hell ofa lot of punishment...a valuable asset in a WWII combat environment. P-40 airframes fighting under the UK banner (Tomahawk and Kittyhawk) were able at times to fight high flying 109's in the desert and didn't always come off the worse. At low altitudes they were dangerous to dogfight.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Actually a little lower than that. The 2 Steves, who fly the A6M3 at Camarillo and the A6M5 at Chino both say it's a little over 250. At that point, the stick "feels like it's stuck in concrete". The reason is because of the barn-door sized ailerons that are humanly impossible to move at those speeds.
The Zero's distinct advantage in it's early days was it's range. In the late 1930s, what production fighter had a 1200 mile range on internal fuel?
The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition.
but was out right inferior to its later main opposition.
I base this conclusion on the following:
The Zero could NOT force fights on terms that were advantagous to it unless the enemy pilots were surprised or willingly engaged in such fights.
Aircraft like the F4U, P-38, etc COULD force combat with the Zero on terms that were good for them and bad for the Zero.
At the end of the day, the Zero was a rationally designed C.R. 42 Falco.
(and the Italians also learned from their flawed assumptions, eventually producing the G55 Centauro and other series 5 aircraft, just as the Japanese produced the Ki-84 and other 1st rate aircraft)
The Zero may have won some early victories over the Spitfire, but I'll stand by my statement that it was not in the same league (which reflects rather well on the Japanese pilots when you think about it....)
but was out right inferior to its later main opposition.
I base this conclusion on the following:
The Zero could NOT force fights on terms that were advantagous to it unless the enemy pilots were surprised or willingly engaged in such fights.
Aircraft like the F4U, P-38, etc COULD force combat with the Zero on terms that were good for them and bad for the Zero.
At the end of the day, the Zero was a rationally designed C.R. 42 Falco.
(and the Italians also learned from their flawed assumptions, eventually producing the G55 Centauro and other series 5 aircraft, just as the Japanese produced the Ki-84 and other 1st rate aircraft)
The Zero may have won some early victories over the Spitfire, but I'll stand by my statement that it was not in the same league (which reflects rather well on the Japanese pilots when you think about it....)
Hi Derfman,
>The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition.
Hm, I'd actually say that the Zeros apparent initial superiority was based on the lack of information the Allies had on the type.
Here is a diagram listing top speeds of the A6M2 compared to various fighter types available to the Allies at the time.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>The Zero was indeed superior to its initial opposition.
Hm, I'd actually say that the Zeros apparent initial superiority was based on the lack of information the Allies had on the type.
Here is a diagram listing top speeds of the A6M2 compared to various fighter types available to the Allies at the time.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Attachments
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
According to this source, the F2A-3 version of the Brewster Buffalo had a max. range of 1680 miles, with no provision for external fuel storage.
Elvis
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"985 miles typical, 1680 max." To get the higher range out of an aircraft like this you have to climb to a cruise altitude, lean, and then probably fly at 45% power. That would be needed to achieve about 48 GPH fuel consumption. In a combat environment that would be tough to pull off.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
...and you're saying that the Zero actually had 1200 miles range, in a "combat environment"?
Probably closer to 900, like the Buff.
Elvis
Probably closer to 900, like the Buff.
Elvis
