Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


You are right, the USN is confused! You convinced me. I give up.

When the USAAF became the USAF we left behind so many traditions unhampered by progress...



Cheers,
Biff
 
gjs238 said:
So much for the natural balance of V-12's.
Click to expand...
Ask ShortRound6 or GregP, but I bet you'll find those were put there not to ballance power strokes, but to reduce bearing loads as individual cylinder power outputs climbed ever higher and pistons and conrods heavier. The "natural ballance" of any even number cylinder bank refers to power stroke balancing, while single cylinder mass ballance in rotary motion is where crankshaft counterweights come in. The torsional loads on a long (hence more flexible) 12 cylinder crankshaft are massive.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Schweik said:
Did your grand father have anything to say about the Kittyhawk?
Click to expand...
My dad!!! He loved the Spitfire but it was not a good tropical fighter. He liked the Kittyhawk but it was like flying a truck compared to a sports car. Given the conditions at Milne Bay, it was pretty good and tough. It was a much roomier cockpit than the Spitty.
After Milne Bay, he returned to instructing at Mildura (2OTU) and getting back into the Spitfire (not in battle) was one of the most enjoyable times for him.
 
All that stuff on page 60 about rpms and MAP bouncing around while getting going after a surprise "bounce" is why nobody ever went into a suspected combat area in economy cruise after their first several combat flights, assuming they survived them. Setting up for quick combat power changes was something they did automatically after they crossed the channel the first several times, at least according to the guys who were there and give talks every month at the museum.
 
I only just found your reply! Many thanks for it. I'll have a good read of it. I'm not sure how dad got that copy being 'Most secret'.
He was testing the Cotton g-suit during these trials hence the bent tail. Normally that amount of g's would have caused a blackout. He did centrifuge tests as well with the suit. He hated those understandably.
 
Chiron said:
How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?

Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?
Click to expand...
I think I commented but, its unlikely anything beats the Spitfire in that matchup. The SPitfire has so many versions, too, that I can't imagine either one beating the Spitfire
 
Sturzkampfflugzeug said:
I think I commented but, its unlikely anything beats the Spitfire in that matchup. The SPitfire has so many versions, too, that I can't imagine either one beating the Spitfire
Click to expand...
If you read through all the past discussions on this and other threads on this forum, you'll discover that the first confrontations between Zeros and Spitfires turned out disastrously for the Spitfires. The Spit pilots tried to use ETO tactics against the Zeros and discovered to their chagrin that Zeros were NOT MEs or FWs. They were far more nimble.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure both the RAAF comparisons of captured A6Ms and Spits were posted earlier in this (or other) threads and they certainly did not give the Spit a big win over the A6M.

Add to that the Spit pilot had bulk hours on the type and the A6M pilot was a newby to the type and the Spits superiority drops even further.

To have created an "honest" comparison both aircraft should have been flown by P-39/P-40 pilots, both with similar hours on the type under test.
 
I would think that the Spit should have little problem with a Zero if it's fought in the classic zoom & boom that would play to strengths. The tests mentioned above, reflect the Spit pilots trying to fight the way they know, not the way they needed to. I agree with MiTasol that a pilot familiar with zoom & boom techniques should have flown the Spit.

Know yourself and your enemy, and you will know the outcome of every battle. Sun Tzu.
 
Spitfire might have done better in the test if allowed to use higher than 9lbs boost?
Or if the Spitfire used had a Merlin 45 and not a Merlin 46?
Granted Merlin 46s were what the Australians had and they didn't have a choice so the test showed them what they needed to know at the time.
But it does make comparing European results/reputation harder to compare to the Australian test for all the "what ifs" that want to use Zeros in Europe.
 
IIRC, the Spitfire Vs that were used over Darwin had trop filters, but the Japanese were operating their A6M-21s under similar conditions, so if if they could be operating without filters, they get the benefit. Secondly, these were not the most modern Spitfires of the time, but the Model 21 Zeroes were of similar vintage, and were maybe even more "used" at the time. Bottom line, it was a fair fight. Head-to-head, the A6M came away on top.
 
I've probably already posted this somewhere back up the thread, but when all the air combats over NW Australia are taken into account the Spitfire achieved an exchange ratio of 1:1 (28:28), including six Japanese fighters.
It's pretty typical of many Allied fighter units and considerably better than that achieved by Spitfire Vs of Fighter Command during Leigh-Mallory's ill advised 'lean forward' into France in 1941-42.

One should be wary of drawing conclusions from low numbers. For example, No 457 Squadron's two bad days (28 May and 6 July) badly skew the figures, with five Spitfires and five pilots being lost.

1 Fighter Wing was always trying to attack the bombers, leaving its aircraft vulnerable to 'the bounce' by escorting fighters. In combination with well known problems with their armament the poor training of the pilots, particularly in gunnery, and undeveloped tactical doctrine ( a noted failure was an inability to operate in pairs) this led to inevitable losses.
 
Worth noting, 49th FG did just as well over Darwin (March - September 1942) with brand new, unimproved P-40Es and almost entirely 'green' pilots (95 out of 102 pilots had never flown P-40s before they went to Darwin), and in spite of the fact that the combat took place mostly at the very limits of their flight ceiling, typically 10-15,000 feet above their critical altitude. Postwar analysis They lost 19 aircraft and four pilots, and shot down 19 Japanese aircraft, including 7 fighters (I think all A6M), 12 bombers (mostly G4M) and one Ki-46. This relative success was partly down to good tactics by their commander. And the 49th FG went on to become an elite unit.

The USAAF 49th Fighter Group over Darwin: a forgotten campaign | The Strategist

This year has seen many 75th anniversaries of battles and campaigns from the darkest hours of 1942, with the Battle of the Coral Sea (4 to 8 May) prominent. But in all these commemorative activities ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
 
You don't suppose there's a relationship between this and the fact that Allisons could handle oversquare (high MP, low RPM) much more smoothly than Merlins, thus giving them superior long range cruise efficiency? (Guadalcanal->Yamamoto->Gaudalcanal)
Try that in a Spit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
733
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
449
Jerrybandit67
J
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
3
Views
462
Airborne2001
A
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
C
Menu
Log in
Register