FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No I'm saying the Zero had a cruise range of more like 1,900 miles!
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No I'm saying the Zero had a cruise range of more like 1,900 miles!
As FBJ said, way more than 1200 miles. A6M2 Zeroes routinely flew missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, 565 air miles *one way*. Look up for the long range US fighter of late war what kind of theoretical still air cruising range was necessary to fly that long an air combat missions: way more than 1200 miles. P-51's, and long range models of P-47' and P-38 *eventually* did fly missions that long or nearly as long, but in 1941-42 the Zero was in a class by itself in range for any fighter competitive in air combat with other single engine fighters.
The missions we've been discussing, at least supposedly discussing when not just reciting rehashed Allied account only conventional wisdom, Zeroes from Kupang, Timor to Darwin were 'only' just over 500 mile one way. Yet that aspect seems completely ignored, too. IOW the 'outclassed' Zeroes flew 500miles, scored a 25:4 fighter-fighter result against the 'in another league' Spit V's, in many combats, Spits not surprised, not outnumbered, (*read* the earlier posts and their underlying references) and supposedly did adjust their tactics over that period of several months but it doesn't seem to have helped much. Then the Zeroes flew 500 miles back to Timor, while many *additional* Spits were lost from fuel exhaustion just from fighting near their own airfields; the ~25 doesn't include known fuel and other operational losses of Spits. Whereas 4 was the total Zero loss, if any were actually fuel related on those 500+mile returns, that tips the combat exchange ratio even more in their favor. And this was JNAF pilots of *1943*, not 41-42. But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?
, Joe
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The model 32 Zero had shorter wings and its range was limited - this presented some problems operationally but overall the Zero enjoyed an extremely long range. 540 liters was carried by the A6M5 -
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Joe B, good post. Unfortunately there are too many of us armchair pilots out here who read all this technical information(and disinformation) about performance numbers and jump to the conclusion that just because one AC goes faster or climbs higher or whatever, it is better than another, perhaps completely ignoring the historical record. And of course there is the bias toward the ETO which leads to the conclusion that most of the AC and pilots in the Pacific were second rate and would not do well in the environment over Europe. The fact is that because of variables like pilot quality, maintenance issues, mission requirements, variations in performance in individual examples of the same AC and many other issues, drawing conclusions based on performance numbers (which are all over the ballpark anyway) isn't very productive or instructive.
Well....i'd hardly rank the A6M and CR-42 together in terms of utility and usefulness.
Hi JoeB,
>But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious? ,
So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?
The capabilities of both aircraft are well-known, so it should possible to find a specific answer here ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?
, So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?
The capabilities of both aircraft are well-known, so it should possible to find a specific answer here ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Boys,
My apologies. I stand corrected.
Elvis
My apologies. I stand corrected.
Elvis
lower speed manueverability. As mentioned the Spit and Hurr pilots were used to having the edge here when fighting the Luftwaffe. Its one factor among others.
Those Spit V's that were used against zeros where the poorest performing spits, The tropical Spit V where just barly faster than the zero, and less manoverable. so its understandable that they had high loses.
Against a LF MK Va, Vb the Zero is nothing, only advantage is low speed manoverability.
The late LF V's 1944- where monsters down low. Same power as the LF IX, but less draggier and way lighter. But at higher altitudes they where useless due to the cropped supercharger.
Against a LF MK Va, Vb the Zero is nothing, only advantage is low speed manoverability.
The late LF V's 1944- where monsters down low. Same power as the LF IX, but less draggier and way lighter. But at higher altitudes they where useless due to the cropped supercharger.
I had not heard that these Vc's were tropicalized.
That was supposed to have been the case in India too where Spitfire VIII's met Ki-43II's, yet it didn't happen that way. My research into daily air combats tends to show that there's no such thing as "nothing" when modern aircraft engage in combat.
Hi Nikademus,
>lower speed manueverability. As mentioned the Spit and Hurr pilots were used to having the edge here when fighting the Luftwaffe. Its one factor among others.
Since the Zero held the advantage of superior low speed menoeuvrability over almost every Allied fighter it encountered, including those types that were highly successful against it, I'd say this would be an indication for shortcomings of the RAAF tactics.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>lower speed manueverability. As mentioned the Spit and Hurr pilots were used to having the edge here when fighting the Luftwaffe. Its one factor among others.
Since the Zero held the advantage of superior low speed menoeuvrability over almost every Allied fighter it encountered, including those types that were highly successful against it, I'd say this would be an indication for shortcomings of the RAAF tactics.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi,
Yes, I think that was part of it. As mentioned, the ETO pilots were used to having the edge in turning fights in general and despite being warned....well sometimes you have to learn the hard way. There was a similar inquiry in the CBI theater around May of 43 by the RAF. Wg Cdr Paul Richey wrote a rather scathing report that sent more than a few higher command hackles rising in regards to the tactics and strategies being used vis-a-vis the Hurricane vs the Japanese 01. (Oscar) One such person acidly suggesting that Richey should borrow a Hurricane and show them all how to fight the Japanese.
I've also seen though, that planes like the Zero tend to be treated like one-trick ponies that can't do anything else. Reading the battle accounts from books like Lundstrom or Shores, I've found that to not be the case nor are the conditions defined by black and white demarcation lines.
But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities.Hi JoeB,
>But clearly the Spit V outclassed the Zero, right? I mean isn't it obvious?
So in which specific way do you suggest the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2 that lead to the RAAF defeat at Darwin?
I'm simply saying that such a lopsided result in favor of the Zero in that situation (typically slightly to somewhat superior numbers for the Spits, radar warning, ambiguous tactical advantage in general for escorts or interceptors IMO, but a very long return flight facing the Zeroes in this case, tropical environment and long supply lines *both* sides had to cope with, several months to adjust tactics which the Spits claimed at the time to have done) pretty much rules out the statement: "the Spit V outclassed the Zero" with any reasonable definition of 'outclassed'. I've actually already said twice, this is the third time, that it doesn't necessarily prove the converse statement.
Joe
Hi Nikademus,
>Wg Cdr Paul Richey wrote a rather scathing report that sent more than a few higher command hackles rising in regards to the tactics and strategies being used vis-a-vis the Hurricane vs the Japanese 01. (Oscar) One such person acidly suggesting that Richey should borrow a Hurricane and show them all how to fight the Japanese.
Highly interesting ... I'd really like to learn more about this! Paul Richey flew with No 1 Squadron in the Battle of France, and it's my impression that they did rather well and even introduced some tactical innovations ... here is a link on a new post with some details (assembled from several recent posts I made on other fora):
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...y-other-books-early-war-air-combat-10996.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Wg Cdr Paul Richey wrote a rather scathing report that sent more than a few higher command hackles rising in regards to the tactics and strategies being used vis-a-vis the Hurricane vs the Japanese 01. (Oscar) One such person acidly suggesting that Richey should borrow a Hurricane and show them all how to fight the Japanese.
Highly interesting ... I'd really like to learn more about this!
Paul Richey flew with No 1 Squadron in the Battle of France, and it's my impression that they did rather well and even introduced some tactical innovations ... here is a link on a new post with some details (assembled from several recent posts I made on other fora):http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...y-other-books-early-war-air-combat-10996.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Joe,
>But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities.
If you read my post more closely, you'll notice that I asked for a "specific way in which the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2".
In the specific characteristic of top speed, it was certainly the A6M2 that was outclassed by the Spitfire V, so the A6M2 would have to be superior in another specific way even so that it could merely be considered equal.
In fact, if you are implying that the RAAF made no tactical mistakes over Darwin - and it certainly looks like it to me -, you actually implying that the A6M2 must have been the superior aircraft.
I did not get the impression that you were considering the third possiblity - that the Spitfire V was equal to the A6M2 - at all.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>But there's a basic logical flaw in your post. Saying the Spit V didn't outclass the Zero doesn't mean one is saying the Zero outclassed the Spit V. Those aren't the only two possibilities.
If you read my post more closely, you'll notice that I asked for a "specific way in which the Spitfire V was outclassed by the A6M2".
In the specific characteristic of top speed, it was certainly the A6M2 that was outclassed by the Spitfire V, so the A6M2 would have to be superior in another specific way even so that it could merely be considered equal.
In fact, if you are implying that the RAAF made no tactical mistakes over Darwin - and it certainly looks like it to me -, you actually implying that the A6M2 must have been the superior aircraft.
I did not get the impression that you were considering the third possiblity - that the Spitfire V was equal to the A6M2 - at all.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I agree I believe he used the same stance on the aerial battle over Ceylon
I'm sorry but again I find that post to defy logic. I didn't say the Darwin result proves the Zero outclassed the Spit V, in fact as I just said I pointed out twice, before your response, that I wasn't saying that. So why would I need to provide ways in which in the Zero as a plane outclassed the Spit V if I've said all along that I wasn't saying it did? I was again simply pointing out the implausibility of saying the Spit V outclassed the Zero when the Spit did that badly, across a number of combats with not exclusively unfavorable circumstances otherwise.
Nor did I say tactics had no effect. I simply again stated some facts, the one sided outcomes throughout, and the Allied claim that they *did* modify their tactics as the campaign went on, and their victory claims show evidence of that, but I pointed out the actual Japanese losses show less if any evidence of that improvement. So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.
And your comment on speed just circles around to the same problem as throughout. Your are *assuming* a paper speed difference of a few 10's mph has a very large effect of fight combat outcomes which must be explained by some other large countervailing factor. Maybe speed differences of that relatively small magnitude didn't have large effects on combat outcomes. This is really what I'm pointing to overall, simple paper comparison says the Spit V was a better plane, actual combat outcomes don't support it. Maybe it's a reason to re-evaluate the accuracy and predictive power of simple paper comparisons. And not the only case.
Re; Hurricane, we discussed on that other thread a number of combats in 1942, the minority of which were over Ceylon. The outcomes of all Hurricane v Japanese fighter combats up to April 1942 (with both sides known) were given. All went against the Hurricane v the Zero, and its record in a larger number of combats v the less well regarded Type 1 was actually even worse. So yes I'm taking the same position: look at the actual facts of outcomes! and don't try to just explain them away to fit preconceptions based on simple paper stats. The actual outcomes absolutely don't support the idea that the Hurricane was a better fighter combat machine than the Zero or Type 1, nor, and I agree it's somewhat more suprising given paper stats, do they support the statement that the Spit V was either. And the statement definitely *was* made on this thread a few times that the Spit V was not only 'better' but 'outclassed' the Zero, whereas my supposed statement of the converse never occurred.
Joe
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I found this article in the Canadian Defence Journal dated 2006/7 and here is a following excerpt and numbers although handy I'm not a cruncher
Despite Birchall's warning almost 16 hours before, most of the defending fighters were still on the ground, with some pilots stood down for breakfast, when the Japanese arrived shortly before 0800 hours. The 30 Squadron on-line history claims that the local fighter controllers, under-estimating the range of the Zero, did not expect an attack that morning, but the First Air Fleet was only 360 miles off the island when sighted by Birchall. Even if the Zeros were as short-legged as the British supposed, Nagumo could easily have moved to a position from which they could reach Colombo early on 5 April. The on-line history also claims that the Colombo radar was unmanned and/or down for routine maintenance at the time. In fact, it had not even been set up yet. At about the same time that 413 Squadron had been ordered to move to Ceylon, the Royal Air Force rushed eight air surveillance radar sets to the island. One was operational at Trincomalee before the Japanese arrived, but the one deployed to Colombo was not.31
Instead of the tactical advantage of having the defending fighters awaiting the Japanese from above, it was now the Japanese who held the advantage of height. And the defenders suffered accordingly. Almost half the defending force – four Fulmars and 15 Hurricanes – was shot down, as were six Fairey Swordfish torpedo aircraft of 788 Squadron, which arrived on the scene from Trincomalee. In fact, the Swordfish, certain that any fighters over Colombo must be friendly, flashed recognition signals to identify themselves as British as the Zeros approached. The attackers also sank an old destroyer and an armed merchant cruiser, damaged a few other ships, and battered various shore installations. Only seven Japanese aircraft were lost, but another 15 were damaged. Ten Bristol Blenheim light bombers of 11 Squadron took off from Ratmalana at 0830 hours to attack the Japanese fleet, but failed to locate it.32
Hi Joe,
>So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.
What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.
What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Pbfoot,
>At about the same time that 413 Squadron had been ordered to move to Ceylon, the Royal Air Force rushed eight air surveillance radar sets to the island.
Interesting - there seems to be no shortage of information on German radar sets, but I've never found a good site on British radars (ignoring the well-documented Chain Home stations for the moment).
>Instead of the tactical advantage of having the defending fighters awaiting the Japanese from above, it was now the Japanese who held the advantage of height.
Sounds like a battle decided by tactics ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>At about the same time that 413 Squadron had been ordered to move to Ceylon, the Royal Air Force rushed eight air surveillance radar sets to the island.
Interesting - there seems to be no shortage of information on German radar sets, but I've never found a good site on British radars (ignoring the well-documented Chain Home stations for the moment).
>Instead of the tactical advantage of having the defending fighters awaiting the Japanese from above, it was now the Japanese who held the advantage of height.
Sounds like a battle decided by tactics ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
