Most air battles are. All pilots attempt to gain a tactical advantage whenever they meet the enemy. Does that somehow make the A6M2 less of a plane or it's pilot's training less relevent?
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
Most air battles are. All pilots attempt to gain a tactical advantage whenever they meet the enemy. Does that somehow make the A6M2 less of a plane or it's pilot's training less relevent?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
The A6M2 was a great bird not denying that and the tandem of it and its crew made them the most dangerous foe for a short period
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Tactics and teamwork....
As the war progressed it seemed the Japanese was lacking both.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I am enjoying this discussion a great deal. There have been some excellent posts with much relevant information. I believe there are some basic truths being exposed among which are: paper performance isn't always triumphant and if fact some of it is tactically insignificant and some of the planes and pilots in the Pacific were not second class and could have coped nicely in the ETO. Hope youall keep up the good work.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
You know, this is great and all, this debate between Spit's and Zero's and tactics and what-not, but....
...what happened to the FW-190?
Did we decided, somewhere along the line, that it was altogether inferior to the Spit and Zero?
I feel like I missed a memo, or something.
Elvis
...what happened to the FW-190?
Did we decided, somewhere along the line, that it was altogether inferior to the Spit and Zero?
I feel like I missed a memo, or something.
Elvis
Hi Elvis,
>...what happened to the FW-190?
Excellent question
Here is a speed diagram comparing A6M2, Spitfire V and Fw 190A-5.
It's not entirely fair as the Fw 190A-5 would lose some speed too when tropicalized, and it would be more adequate to use a 1942 Fw 190A-3 which had slightly lower engine ratings than the Fw 190A-5, but I have used the 2400 rpm "Steig- und Kampfleistung" 30 min power setting here that is about equivalent to what the A-3 would achieve.
As you can see, the Fw 190A-5 is quite a bit superior speed-wise than the Spitfire V, and if you look at the RAF history, there can be no doubt that this both resulted in a bad exchange ratio between RAF and Luftwaffe as well as an awareness on part of the RAF that they were flying an inferior aircraft. The Spitfire of course still was far superior in low-speed manoeuvrability, but as Spitfire ace "Johnnie" Johnson commeted, "Turning doesn't win battles".
The interesting aspect about the Spitfire versus Zero comparison is that the Spitfire enjoys all the advantages of superior performance, high-speed manoeuvrability and firepower over the Zero that the Focke-Wulf enjoyed over the Spitfire, and the Zero enjoys the the low-speed manoeuvrability superiority over the Spitfire just as the Spitfire enjoyed it over the Focke-Wulf.
Clearly, the Spitfire pilots had all the advantages on their side that had been against them in 1942 when they were facing the Luftwaffe ...
With regard to the comparison Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 versus A6M2: It would have been a turkey shoot, just like for example F4U-1 versus A6M5 later in the war.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>...what happened to the FW-190?
Excellent question
Here is a speed diagram comparing A6M2, Spitfire V and Fw 190A-5.
It's not entirely fair as the Fw 190A-5 would lose some speed too when tropicalized, and it would be more adequate to use a 1942 Fw 190A-3 which had slightly lower engine ratings than the Fw 190A-5, but I have used the 2400 rpm "Steig- und Kampfleistung" 30 min power setting here that is about equivalent to what the A-3 would achieve.
As you can see, the Fw 190A-5 is quite a bit superior speed-wise than the Spitfire V, and if you look at the RAF history, there can be no doubt that this both resulted in a bad exchange ratio between RAF and Luftwaffe as well as an awareness on part of the RAF that they were flying an inferior aircraft. The Spitfire of course still was far superior in low-speed manoeuvrability, but as Spitfire ace "Johnnie" Johnson commeted, "Turning doesn't win battles".
The interesting aspect about the Spitfire versus Zero comparison is that the Spitfire enjoys all the advantages of superior performance, high-speed manoeuvrability and firepower over the Zero that the Focke-Wulf enjoyed over the Spitfire, and the Zero enjoys the the low-speed manoeuvrability superiority over the Spitfire just as the Spitfire enjoyed it over the Focke-Wulf.
Clearly, the Spitfire pilots had all the advantages on their side that had been against them in 1942 when they were facing the Luftwaffe ...
With regard to the comparison Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3 versus A6M2: It would have been a turkey shoot, just like for example F4U-1 versus A6M5 later in the war.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Attachments
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Interesting comparison.
Thanks for posting that.
You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).
How are you interpreting "advantage".
Concentration or sheer force?
Spit had more guns, but the Zero had cannons.
Also, reading your post, a scenario flashed in my mind.
You say the Spit was more manuverable in the "high-speed", but the Zero was more manuverable in the "low-speed".
Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's derriere ...or is it that simple?
Something tells me its not.
Lastly, it seems the FW has an advantage over both of the other planes, in that it hits harder (I believe it too had cannons), is faster and tougher.
Thus it seems, it would most likely be the winner of that contest.
Elvis
Thanks for posting that.
You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).
How are you interpreting "advantage".
Concentration or sheer force?
Spit had more guns, but the Zero had cannons.
Also, reading your post, a scenario flashed in my mind.
You say the Spit was more manuverable in the "high-speed", but the Zero was more manuverable in the "low-speed".
Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's derriere ...or is it that simple?
Something tells me its not.
Lastly, it seems the FW has an advantage over both of the other planes, in that it hits harder (I believe it too had cannons), is faster and tougher.
Thus it seems, it would most likely be the winner of that contest.
Elvis
Hi Elvis,
>You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).
The Spitfire V actually had two cannon, too - I believe some of the RAAF Spitfires even had four cannon, but that was not a successful setup due to its weight, and due to a lack of gun heating provisions for the outer pair of cannon. The Hispano cannon in the Spitfire were superior to the Type 99 cannon in the A6M2 - the Hispano II managed to achieve a total energy output (kinetic energy of the projectiles plus chemical energy of the explosives in the shells) of 1.06 MW per barrel, while the 20 mm Type 99-1 only had 0.52 MW per barrel (and fired at a lower velocity).
>Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's derriere ...or is it that simple?
>Something tells me its not.
You're right, it's more complicated. If the Spitfire simpy kept circling (which it might lack the power to do), the Zero could decelerate and slice through the middle of the circle to catch the Spitfire there.
High-speed manoeuvrability is something that's useful for short periods - for example when diving at an enemy, or when diving away from an enemy.
A Spitfire diving at a Zero has still full control of the elevator and some useful amount of aileron in order to line up on its target. The Zero was infamous for losing aileron control almost completely at high speeds - if it dived at its target, it could not dive very fast, or it would be unable to point its guns at all. The dive speed determines how quickly you can close with the enemy (and he will be more likely to notice you and have more time to manoeuvre against you if you dive slower), and as it also determines how easy it will be for you to get away from the enemy to avoid a counter attack, and how readily you will get into a position for another attack. Obviously, the greater the speed of your attack, the higher you will be able to zoom afterwards - and from up there, you can attack again.
If you are trying to evade an enemy, staying controllable in a high-speed dive while you enemy loses control is very useful - you dive away, and if he gives chase, you let speed build up to the point where he loses controllability, and then you can simply fly any kind of manoeuvre to shake him off - he won't be able to follow that. If he doesn't follow but keeps his altitude, that's almost as good - you have shaken him off as well, though it might be more difficult to get back into an attack position then.
Circling is not that important in air combat at all - usually, it's the last resort of someone who is defending against an attack of an enemy flying an aircraft with higher performance. That's what Johnnie Johnson meant when he said "Turning doesn't win battles" - the Spitfires were out-turning Focke-Wulfs every day, but they were still losing more of their number than they were shooting down in return.
Part of the explanation for that is that air combat is not a duel between two aircraft whose pilots are aware of each other and who start the fight from a position of equality. It's an encounter of formations of aircraft flying at different altitudes in different directions, with the initiative resting with the side that spots the enemy first. The aircraft in each formation try to cover each other, so it's often not necessary to out-turn an enemy because he will be scared off (or shot down) by friendly aircraft anyway, and if a pilot loses the support of his formation, the first thing he usually does is to get out of the fight (if possible) and try to find friendly support again. Four aircraft were an effective fighting team, two were the minimum fighting team, and one alone was considered to be in serious danger.
Four-ship formation tactics were developed by the Luftwaffe in Spain, with the RAF adopting them only towards the end of the Battle of Britain. The Flying Tigers apparently used them quite early, and part of the success of the Navy Wildcats was due to Jimmy Thatch taking the gossip about a Japanese super-fighter serious and developing formation tactics to defend against it - resulting in the famous Thatch Weave. The Japanese on the other hand were slow to adopt four-ship tactics. Apparently, the Army had contact to the Luftwaffe and learned it directly from them, even borrowing the terminology, but it took the Navy long to give up the obsolete three-ship formations that were a relic from the biplane era when radio was not available.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>You mentioned that the Spit has an advantage of firepower over the Zero (among other things).
The Spitfire V actually had two cannon, too - I believe some of the RAAF Spitfires even had four cannon, but that was not a successful setup due to its weight, and due to a lack of gun heating provisions for the outer pair of cannon. The Hispano cannon in the Spitfire were superior to the Type 99 cannon in the A6M2 - the Hispano II managed to achieve a total energy output (kinetic energy of the projectiles plus chemical energy of the explosives in the shells) of 1.06 MW per barrel, while the 20 mm Type 99-1 only had 0.52 MW per barrel (and fired at a lower velocity).
>Doesn't that mean, all the Spit pilot has to do is to retain a certain speed and play the "circle" game with the Zero and it should catch up with the Zero's derriere ...or is it that simple?
>Something tells me its not.
You're right, it's more complicated. If the Spitfire simpy kept circling (which it might lack the power to do), the Zero could decelerate and slice through the middle of the circle to catch the Spitfire there.
High-speed manoeuvrability is something that's useful for short periods - for example when diving at an enemy, or when diving away from an enemy.
A Spitfire diving at a Zero has still full control of the elevator and some useful amount of aileron in order to line up on its target. The Zero was infamous for losing aileron control almost completely at high speeds - if it dived at its target, it could not dive very fast, or it would be unable to point its guns at all. The dive speed determines how quickly you can close with the enemy (and he will be more likely to notice you and have more time to manoeuvre against you if you dive slower), and as it also determines how easy it will be for you to get away from the enemy to avoid a counter attack, and how readily you will get into a position for another attack. Obviously, the greater the speed of your attack, the higher you will be able to zoom afterwards - and from up there, you can attack again.
If you are trying to evade an enemy, staying controllable in a high-speed dive while you enemy loses control is very useful - you dive away, and if he gives chase, you let speed build up to the point where he loses controllability, and then you can simply fly any kind of manoeuvre to shake him off - he won't be able to follow that. If he doesn't follow but keeps his altitude, that's almost as good - you have shaken him off as well, though it might be more difficult to get back into an attack position then.
Circling is not that important in air combat at all - usually, it's the last resort of someone who is defending against an attack of an enemy flying an aircraft with higher performance. That's what Johnnie Johnson meant when he said "Turning doesn't win battles" - the Spitfires were out-turning Focke-Wulfs every day, but they were still losing more of their number than they were shooting down in return.
Part of the explanation for that is that air combat is not a duel between two aircraft whose pilots are aware of each other and who start the fight from a position of equality. It's an encounter of formations of aircraft flying at different altitudes in different directions, with the initiative resting with the side that spots the enemy first. The aircraft in each formation try to cover each other, so it's often not necessary to out-turn an enemy because he will be scared off (or shot down) by friendly aircraft anyway, and if a pilot loses the support of his formation, the first thing he usually does is to get out of the fight (if possible) and try to find friendly support again. Four aircraft were an effective fighting team, two were the minimum fighting team, and one alone was considered to be in serious danger.
Four-ship formation tactics were developed by the Luftwaffe in Spain, with the RAF adopting them only towards the end of the Battle of Britain. The Flying Tigers apparently used them quite early, and part of the success of the Navy Wildcats was due to Jimmy Thatch taking the gossip about a Japanese super-fighter serious and developing formation tactics to defend against it - resulting in the famous Thatch Weave. The Japanese on the other hand were slow to adopt four-ship tactics. Apparently, the Army had contact to the Luftwaffe and learned it directly from them, even borrowing the terminology, but it took the Navy long to give up the obsolete three-ship formations that were a relic from the biplane era when radio was not available.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
HoHun,
Great post!
I get it now.
Thanks.
Elvis
Great post!
I get it now.
Thanks.
Elvis
You know, this is great and all, this debate between Spit's and Zero's and tactics and what-not, but....
...what happened to the FW-190?
Did we decided, somewhere along the line, that it was altogether inferior to the Spit and Zero?
I feel like I missed a memo, or something.
Elvis
Given the fact that progressive marks/blocks of FW-190 were able to compete well with 2nd generation Allied aircraft like the P-51, P-47, P-38 and Spitfires of mid and later marks, I'd give the nod of paper superiority to the 190 over the A6M2. 190A's proved to be very troublesome for the Spit Vc's as well.
That said.....based on real life day to day occurances, I don't agree that it would be a "turkey shoot" replacing Spit V's with 190's anymore than it turned out to be a "turkey shoot" for the Spit which also had all the "stats" to beat the Zero on paper yet it didn't play out that way. (nor did it work out that way initially with VIII's taking on Ki-43II's)
A turkey shoot would require additional factors to be present such as inexperienced pilots in the Zeros. Without a real life comparison however.....i'd predict a ratio of less than 3:1 in favor of the 190 initially.
Progressive upgrades however increase the theoretical superiority of the Spit and 190 over the A6M because it simply wasn't a airframe suitible for further development and the A6M2 was essentially a 1940 design while the FW in particular was younger and had far far more potential for upgrade. The A6M's designer said himself that the usual period of useful life for a fighter plane design was around 2 years after which you needed a sucessor. Problem for Japan was there was no sucessor available for the A6M. It was both a victim of it's initial success as well as a symptom of the problems prevalient in Japanese industry. It wasn't like they weren't aware of the Zero's growing obsolecence from 1943 onward....it was simply a choice between having fighter planes to fight and not having them. They couldn't devote enough capacity to new fighter research and maintain current production of existing airframes at the same time. The Ki-61 was a great leap forward but technical issues prevented it from superseeding the Ki-43 which also continued production despite increasing obsolence and the Ki-44 never seemed to shake it's bad luck.
Hi Nikademus,
>I'd give the nod of paper superiority to the 190 over the A6M2.
Oh, well - you are probably using this word for the first time here, but it has been running through this thread and a similar older one as sort of a leitmotif, so it's time for me to do something about it:
I'm fed up by the re-occurence of this "paper superiority" term in this discussion. Utter nonsense - flight performance is achieved in the sky, and every air force has gone to great length to determine the performance of its own and of all enemy aircraft as accurately as possible because no-one actually fighting in the war had any doubt that performance was the key to survival. (The British actually planned a commando raid to capture a Fw 190 in order to get that data, and they'd have pulled it off if a German pilot hadn't accidentally landed in England with a perfect example before they were ready to raid.)
Trying to disqualify what the pilots of the era considered vital data as "paper statistics" is a clear sign of armchair quarterbacking.
>That said.....based on real life day to day occurances, I don't agree that it would be a "turkey shoot" replacing Spit V's with 190's anymore than it turned out to be a "turkey shoot" for the Spit which also had all the "stats" to beat the Zero on paper yet it didn't play out that way. (nor did it work out that way initially with VIII's taking on Ki-43II's)
The Focke-Wulf pilots proved that they were able to take on an inferior performing opponent of superior manoeuvrability with great success when they fought the Spitfire V over the channel. It is true that the Spitfire pilots in the Pacific did not achieve the same result, but the question remains: Why didn't they? They enjoyed all the same advantages as the Focke-Wulfs enjoyed over the channel. With that question unanswered, it's not possible to draw an analogy.
>A turkey shoot would require additional factors to be present such as inexperienced pilots in the Zeros. Without a real life comparison however.....i'd predict a ratio of less than 3:1 in favor of the 190 initially.
There is a limit to what experience can do. The Polish air force had long-serving, well-trained career officers as pilots, many of whom achieved impressive success later when serving with the RAF, but flying obsolete PZL parasols, they just weren't able to put up effective resistance when Germany invaded Poland. The performance superiority of the Fw 190A-3 over the A6M2 is probably greater than the superiority the Me 109 and Me 110 had over the PZL fighter ... just for perspective.
Butler/Caldwell seem to quote a claims to loss ratio of 6.5:1 for JG 26 in 1942, and while that might include the usual overclaiming, it probably means that they were doing better than 3:1 against the Spitfires over the channel.
Now replace that Spitfire with a fighter that is significantly slower, loses controllability at high speed, has only half the firepower and no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks at all - I wouldn't expect the kill ratio to drop under these circumstances.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I'd give the nod of paper superiority to the 190 over the A6M2.
Oh, well - you are probably using this word for the first time here, but it has been running through this thread and a similar older one as sort of a leitmotif, so it's time for me to do something about it:
I'm fed up by the re-occurence of this "paper superiority" term in this discussion. Utter nonsense - flight performance is achieved in the sky, and every air force has gone to great length to determine the performance of its own and of all enemy aircraft as accurately as possible because no-one actually fighting in the war had any doubt that performance was the key to survival. (The British actually planned a commando raid to capture a Fw 190 in order to get that data, and they'd have pulled it off if a German pilot hadn't accidentally landed in England with a perfect example before they were ready to raid.)
Trying to disqualify what the pilots of the era considered vital data as "paper statistics" is a clear sign of armchair quarterbacking.
>That said.....based on real life day to day occurances, I don't agree that it would be a "turkey shoot" replacing Spit V's with 190's anymore than it turned out to be a "turkey shoot" for the Spit which also had all the "stats" to beat the Zero on paper yet it didn't play out that way. (nor did it work out that way initially with VIII's taking on Ki-43II's)
The Focke-Wulf pilots proved that they were able to take on an inferior performing opponent of superior manoeuvrability with great success when they fought the Spitfire V over the channel. It is true that the Spitfire pilots in the Pacific did not achieve the same result, but the question remains: Why didn't they? They enjoyed all the same advantages as the Focke-Wulfs enjoyed over the channel. With that question unanswered, it's not possible to draw an analogy.
>A turkey shoot would require additional factors to be present such as inexperienced pilots in the Zeros. Without a real life comparison however.....i'd predict a ratio of less than 3:1 in favor of the 190 initially.
There is a limit to what experience can do. The Polish air force had long-serving, well-trained career officers as pilots, many of whom achieved impressive success later when serving with the RAF, but flying obsolete PZL parasols, they just weren't able to put up effective resistance when Germany invaded Poland. The performance superiority of the Fw 190A-3 over the A6M2 is probably greater than the superiority the Me 109 and Me 110 had over the PZL fighter ... just for perspective.
Butler/Caldwell seem to quote a claims to loss ratio of 6.5:1 for JG 26 in 1942, and while that might include the usual overclaiming, it probably means that they were doing better than 3:1 against the Spitfires over the channel.
Now replace that Spitfire with a fighter that is significantly slower, loses controllability at high speed, has only half the firepower and no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks at all - I wouldn't expect the kill ratio to drop under these circumstances.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I'm not trying to disqualify anything. You will recall I have given both the Spitfire and the 190 the nod in overall superiority in pretty much every mention of the three aircraft in a general comparison. On the contrary.....my comment's are not "armchair quarterbacking" but observations based on analysis of real world data on a day to day basis. My research continues of course. As for "paper superiority.", there is a definitive difference between stats and RL preformance. With few exceptions i've rarely found any particular matchup of aircraft within a certain competetive range to exceed close ratios of losses due to the simple fact that air combat involves variables and dimensions outside of simple plane stat and pilot stat comparisons. Thats why for the most part WWII air combat was a matter of attritional warfare. It ended up coming down to he who had the greatest capacity to absorb losses. Turkey shoots tend to only occur in situations of great disperity or unbalance to use another word. Those situations involved factors in addition to simple preformance estimates of an aircraft in question. So its not that i'm discounting paper stats, rather, i'm acknowledging real world factors that also influenced air combat and thus, trying to put them in a more realistic perspective.
And the A6M and Ki-43 pilots proved that they were able to take on a statistically superior preforming opponent with success as well. Having seen this repeatedly with different aircraft matchups....I can certainly draw an analogy. I'd say the FW pilots proved they were able to exploit the strengths of their aircraft while fighting defensively over France over an opponent that was slow to come to terms with the different tactical and operational sitaution facing them. I'd also say that the results were influenced by Fighter Command's expansion coupled with the retiring of veteran pilots to help train the new crop. The Germans tended to maintain their experienced pilots in the field giving them an exp edge. You can't IMHO, simply attribute it to one factor (plane preformance)
I wasn't simply referring to experience. There are numerous variables at play. I've also read that the Polish airforce didn't preform that badly against the Luftwaffe in 39 considering the odds. Some of those same Poles later demonstrated their innovative tactics to a skeptical Fighter Command during the Battle of Britian and changed some minds and impressed still more. Turns out the French also preformed credibly during the initial fighting.
I doubt it based on what i've seen though it's certainly possible. Fighter Command seemed slow to respond to the situation. JG 26 appears to have scored a possible 3.1:1 ratio during BoB. They were also considered the Luftwaffe's top guns.
The British felt similar several times in the course of the Pacific. It didn't happen as predicted. Thats the danger of transposing a situation that occured in one theater and situation directly onto another. I remain conservative in my prediction. Against pilots of equivilent skill....the 190's might sustain a 2:1 to 3:1 ratio. Maybe not. 6:1 I don't find credible at all as a prediction.
Hi Nikademus,
>I'm not trying to disqualify anything.
"Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
>As for "paper superiority.", there is a definitive difference between stats and RL preformance.
Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb. I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".
Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.
>Turkey shoots tend to only occur in situations of great disperity or unbalance to use another word.
What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...
>So its not that i'm discounting paper stats, rather, i'm acknowledging real world factors that also influenced air combat and thus, trying to put them in a more realistic perspective.
That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.
>And the A6M and Ki-43 pilots proved that they were able to take on a statistically superior preforming opponent with success as well.
Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.
The Flying Tiger tactics coincidentally were the same tactics that were used so successfully by the Fw 190 pilots on the channel front.
>I'd say the FW pilots proved they were able to exploit the strengths of their aircraft while fighting defensively over France over an opponent that was slow to come to terms with the different tactical and operational sitaution facing them.
Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies'). I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.
>I doubt it based on what i've seen though it's certainly possible. Fighter Command seemed slow to respond to the situation. JG 26 appears to have scored a possible 3.1:1 ratio during BoB. They were also considered the Luftwaffe's top guns.
They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.
The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I'm not trying to disqualify anything.
"Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
>As for "paper superiority.", there is a definitive difference between stats and RL preformance.
Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb. I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".
Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.
>Turkey shoots tend to only occur in situations of great disperity or unbalance to use another word.
What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...
>So its not that i'm discounting paper stats, rather, i'm acknowledging real world factors that also influenced air combat and thus, trying to put them in a more realistic perspective.
That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.
>And the A6M and Ki-43 pilots proved that they were able to take on a statistically superior preforming opponent with success as well.
Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.
The Flying Tiger tactics coincidentally were the same tactics that were used so successfully by the Fw 190 pilots on the channel front.
>I'd say the FW pilots proved they were able to exploit the strengths of their aircraft while fighting defensively over France over an opponent that was slow to come to terms with the different tactical and operational sitaution facing them.
Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies'). I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.
>I doubt it based on what i've seen though it's certainly possible. Fighter Command seemed slow to respond to the situation. JG 26 appears to have scored a possible 3.1:1 ratio during BoB. They were also considered the Luftwaffe's top guns.
They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.
The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Really?HoHun said:
Because from what I've read so far, I feel Nickademus seems to hold a slight "paper superiority" over HoHun, based on his skillfull execution of the litterary material, balanced with what seems to be some real world knowledge, of the subject at hand, and how he can keep the discussion progressing to an ultimate conclusion, rather than seeming to "stall" slightly in prior conversations, as they lift ever higher and higher.
Although I do have to admit that HoHun seems to hold stronger arguments at the discussions "initial climb" towards its ultimate conclusion, and his ability to reference an ever increasing number of factual comparisons, seems to give his reference cache the nod of "superiority" ("on paper", that is) over just about anyone who's posted in this thread, so far.
Boy, I don't know. It's pretty close on this one.
D just kidding. )Elvis
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
That really sums this whole discussion up....Hun said:
Hi again,
This quote might be interesting in the context of our thread:
Jimmy Thach, quoted in Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific:
"In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet."
(From Grumman F4F Wildcat )
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
This quote might be interesting in the context of our thread:
Jimmy Thach, quoted in Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific:
"In connection with the performance of the Zero fighter, any success we had against the Zero is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly, but is the result of comparatively poor marksmanship on the part of the Japanese, stupid mistakes made by a few of their pilots and superior marksmanship and teamwork on the part of some of our pilots ...
The deficiency not only prevents our fighter [the F4F] from properly carrying out its mission but it has had an alarming effect on the morale of the fighter pilots in the Fleet at this time and on those who are going to be sent to the Fleet."
(From Grumman F4F Wildcat )
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yes, it is interesting. It's also in Lundstrom. However, such comment's must be taken in context as anything else. In the PacWar in particular, the respective pilots of each side commonly didn't hold very charitable views of each other. There were exceptions of course....Saburo Sakai being one of them. Such commentary can be found in Lundstrom's pages after the first clash between the First Team and Japanese A5M fighters.
Another relevent common came from Jack Fletcher;
"Nobody mentions the matter, for fear of bringing down the wrath of the aviators upon them, the Japanese Zeros all wore Seven League Boots and our aviators gave them alot of G.D. respect."
Another good comment;
"Pilots are anxiously awaiting faster and better fighters. Repeat are anxiously awaiting faster and better fighters."
So you can see.....comments can be pulled in both directions. In terms of Thach's comments. I can understand "why" he'd say such a thing apart from the natural tendancy of the pilots to downgrade each other. Chris Shores at the end of Bloody Shambles Vol. II commented on the "myth" of the Zero's invincibility as an Allied invention....and that the reason why it was done so was because it was easier in Allied minds to accept that they were beaten by a machine and not by well trained opponents. This was due in part to the standing pregidice that was standard during that time period in Asia. Getting back directly to Thach....he encountered the Zero CAP after a period of intensive and chaotic combat and they were disorganized, fatigued and had their blood up. I also suspect that they had little to no cannon ammo left....all of which contributed to the initial brilliant success of the Thach weave....resulting in the loss of 6 Zeros for 1 Wildcat. A brilliant debut preformance that would not be repeated again.
Hi Nikademus,
>So you can see.....comments can be pulled in both directions.
Actually, your comments seem to be working in the same direction as the one I provided: The F4F was not considered a match for the A6M2.
The Thatch comment still stands out as it's the only one that actually gives reasons for the success against a superior performing enemy.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>So you can see.....comments can be pulled in both directions.
Actually, your comments seem to be working in the same direction as the one I provided: The F4F was not considered a match for the A6M2.
The Thatch comment still stands out as it's the only one that actually gives reasons for the success against a superior performing enemy.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
