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

Some fighters do well in a "mix".
Such as P-38s providing top cover and/or handling the higher altitudes while other fighters operate at lower altitudes.

Without the top cover the lower altitude fighter's job gets a lot harder as the enemy can engage from a height advantage (not all the time).

The top cover fighters may be able to disrupt this tactic or eliminate it from use at times (not always) even if they post few kills on the score board.

The P-38s range was also useful in some areas. In the Med the P-38s could provide cover for the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. The single engine fighters available at the time could not do this no matter how many there were.

If you can't reach the target area it doesn't matter how good the single engine fighter is.
 
GrauGeist said:
The PTO saw average operating altitudes lower than 25,000 feet.
The ETO was about the only theater (with certain exceptions for the CBI) where high altitude operations were the norm.
Click to expand...

Au contraire mon frere. At least not when it came to P-38s

Some quotes from P-38 pilot interviews, 1943. They note specifically that the P-38s preferred to fly at 25 or 26,000 ft, as did the heavy bombers, and that it sometimes caused them trouble seeing the dive bombers way down below. Also as I pointed out earlier, 49th FG P-40s were defending Darwin at 25 - 27,000 ft, and per the below Wildcats were operating that high over Guadalcanal sometimes, though it was 'above their altitude'.


The P-40's, acting as front cover as well as escort, flew with the bombers. They asked us to fly about 3,000 feet above them but when they were at 12,OOO that was not high enough; it was usually more desirable for the P-38's to go in at about 24,000 or 25,000. We had so few P-38's that's the only way we could do it; had we been jumped from above, we would have been wiped out, and the B-17's also. It is easier to work down, than up in a surprise attack.
...

Major Mitchell and his men flew six or seven missions, dirty missions with bombers to Kahili in P-40's, meeting lots of opposition. Their job was top cover; the bombers flew very high, at 25,000 to 26,000 feet, the p-40' s a little lower, and the Marines (Grummans) at about 15,000, working with the SBD's.
...

Four Grummans, away beyond their altitude at 26,000 feet, were jumped by some Japs from above. We P-38's went in at 240-250 miles an hour indicated and had a lot of speed when we got up to the Jap planes. I got a direct hit at one; another pulled off to the side and followed me. I pulled away at full throttle, about 180-190 miles indicated. The Jap fell back and back, keeping at the same level but no longer shooting. When he turned around to leave, My wing man got him.

...
Several times when bombers had engaged Zeros, the P-38's, weaving back and forth up high, didn't see the fighting. That's quite possible! It happened two or three times and was extremely embarrassing. They'd come back and say to the P-38 pilots, "Where the hell were you when the fight was going on? We could have used you!" We'd say, "What fighting?" (As you all know, the radios never work in combat when you need them. The Navy flyers were on the main frequency, and we on another, so we had to switch to the main frequency to call the SBD's or be called by them. Quite often only one or two of our radios would be in operation - and the wrong man would hear the call). Well, two or three times the P-38's went blithely on their way while fighting was going on. They began to call our P-38's "high altitude fox holes"!

...
The P-38's never tried to tangle with the Japs at any altitude. We'd follow them from 30,000 feet to sea level, but never tried to fight them; couldn't possibly do it at any altitude, regardless of whether we used our flaps or not. (Those new flaps, incidentally, are a great help in turning). We can outrun the Zeros straight and level at any altitude, from sea level up.

The same interview does also mention that they did not have problems with compressibility, due to pulling out their dives when they encountered the warning buffet:

Q. Did the handbook restrictions on P-38 compressibility in higher altitudes hinder you in combat?

A. We out there didn't know the meaning of the word! It means "the absolute", does it not? Apparently the P-38 can become unmanageable in a dive. All of us, I guess, have tested that at least once; but you don't have to hold it that long usually. It builds up a lot of "compressibility", but you could indicate between 400 and 500 miles an hour around 20,000 feet and pull out without any trouble. You get a shudder but bring it out on the bridge of the shudder instead of going into it, and let it buck. In that bucking you won't snap anything off; ordinarily in bucking you vibrate right down to the ground, but you get back on the edge and ease it out.

Q. Does that bucking build up pretty heavily as you go down?

A. Yes.

Major
Mitchell: We never thought of that in any of our fighting; we'd go ahead. The Zeros would roll, and we'd roll with them chase them around and down.

This was pretty interesting too:

Captain Lanphier: We had some trouble fighting Zeros. We can't turn and approach as fast as they can. Some of us used our flaps and slowed up, staying behind the Zeros when they turned, then turning under them. That was frequently effective. If we had planned an attack on the bombers, I think I'd have had my people dive with the flaps (making an overhead approach and using the flaps to keep slow until making a run), then fold the flaps and dive. We can turn inside the Grumman with the flaps.

I think this means maybe doing a low-yo-yo, this is the same maneuver Robert DeHaven described using in the P-40
​
 
Last edited:
You have brought this up many times before - it's the general assumption about the MTO as well. But when you get into the weeds in the squadron histories and day by day action reports, the fact is, both in the Pacific and the MTO, quite often the 'low altitude fighters' had to figure out how to fend for themselves, and they figured out tactics to do so. Much harder in the MTO by the way. Most of the missions flown by the 49th FG in 1942 for example were not structured in that way with top cover. The P-38s didn't arrive that early and even once they were there there weren't enough of them to cover every mission.

In China, the 23rd FG established Air Superiority over the same kind of IJA aircraft basically with only P-40s (notably P-40K was very prominent, and later N and some M). It became enough of a problem for the Japanese that they launched a major ground offensive to dislodge them. They still had the altitude disadvantage but they figured out how to adapt to it.

That's very true, and I think that was the main niche for the P-38 in general for a long time.
 
I'll defer to your greater experience on that - what I remember from flying light planes years ago was that it got much colder when you reached 10,000 ft.

However, -5F is pretty damn cold without a heater. I've experienced those kinds of temperatures. Ground temperature in the Pacific is also often in the 80s. For example as I type this the current temperature in Port Moresby is 78. Per your calculation that would mean -24C at 25,000 ft and that is -11F, which is chilly brotha.
 
I don't claim to be an expert on the P-38, but I have read the unit history of the US 49th FG, 75 and 76 Sqn RAAF, and a few other squdarons in the PTO very closely. I was actually really surprised to see how well they did with the P-40s and that the 8th FS compared pretty well to the 9th FS in victory claims.

I think the p-38 was a great fighter, definitely a better fighter (certainly in it's potential) than a P-40, but it also had it's limitations and it seemed to take a long time to go through the usual teething process with a new fighter, and to figure out how to use it to optimal advantage. That's why they sent Lindburgh out there, right? The P-38 had the range and the altitude performance sufficient to put it in a dominant role in the PTO. Having that second engine made a big difference in operations in the Pacific as well, it saved the life of many pilots.

This is what Robert DeHaven said about the P-40 vs P-38

"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. [...] The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did not [believe] that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."[64]​

This was his comment on what I think was a low-yo-yo technique similar to what was mentioned in the P-38 interview I just posted:

[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight.

By the way, this is one of the pilots in the interview, he flew 97 missions, got 4 victories, and was on the famous Yammamoto assassination mission (he was at one time given credit for the victory on Yamamoto's plane but they seem to have reversed that later)

Thomas George Lanphier Jr. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the other guy, he was also on the same mission. He got 3 victories on the P-39, and 5 more flying P-38s, and ended up with 8 victories overall while at Guadalcanal, he got three more victory flying P-51s over with 15th FG flying from Iwo Jima, for 11 total.

John W. Mitchell (United States Air Force) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
Now that's a post war "cliche" If you examine the operational history of any US Figher in service during WW2, there were issues. P-47 also had compressibility issues, P-51 stability issues, for example (there are many more)

Lindberg was sent to the SWP to show pilots proper leaning techniques so they can get more range out of their aircraft. He also visited a Marine Squadron. He flew with Tommy McGuire's squadron.



Soon after General George C. Kenny arrived to command the allied air forces under General Douglas MacArthur, he asked Washington for two things:

  • Give his Air Force a number and
  • Send him some P-38s
The Result:- The Fifth Air Force was born and enough P-38s to equip one squadron (28 aircraft), a fighter squadron, was authorized. The 39th and 40th Fighter Squadrons had just returned to Australia from a nine week's tour of duty at Port Moresby. It was decided that one of the two squadrons would get the P-38s. Since both squadrons had about the same record of accomplishment, a coin was tossed to determine the winner. The 39th won the toss. As soon as their planes were received and the pilots were checked out, the 39th returned to New Guinea. As Teddy W. Hanks recalls, they got official credit for 74 enemy planes destroyed in aerial combat before losing a pilot.
 

Of course its colder at 10,000 than at sea level. They, however, still use the same standard lapse rate today that they did 75 years ago. 2 degrees change per thousand feet. Does not matter where in the globe you are.
 
Nuff said...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Of course its colder at 10,000 than at sea level. They, however, still use the same standard lapse rate today that they did 75 years ago. 2 degrees change per thousand feet. Does not matter where in the globe you are.
Click to expand...

Right. And -5F to -11F is still damn cold no matter where on the globe you are...
 

Yes I agree, all new fighters particularly later in the war had teething issues, quite often prolonged. Some took longer than others to shake out. The issues with the P-38 were serious and took a while to sort out. Not just compressibility and turbos and turning, but also the heater and the electrical generator. But the Corsairs had a lot of problems too, P-47 as you said, P-51 to some extent, the Helldiver had a ton of problems. Typhoon was real bad for the RAF. Many of the newer Japanese types of course famously struggled. Many other US types never made the battlefield due to ongoing issues they couldn't sort out.

If they had sorted out the problems with the P-38 more quickly I think it would have become the long range escort fighter for 8th AF and would have shortened the war. It definitely could have shortened the campaign in the MTO.
 
Used to go winter camping in Temps near zero. With the right gear it is not too bad. Sure wouldn't want to try it at 30-40 below.
Snowshoe in on Friday night. Come out on Sunday.

Or talk to motorcycle riders. 50 degree F at 60 mph isn't too bad for a short period of time. Several hours is misery. 75 degrees at 60mph is much nicer.

Sometimes 20-30 degrees over several hours makes a huge difference.
 
Schweik said:
Yes I agree, all new fighters particularly later in the war had teething issues, quite often prolonged. Some took longer than others to shake out. The issues with the P-38 were serious and took a while to sort out.
Click to expand...
The aircraft was just entering service at the start of the war and was initially designed as an interceptor. It's mission changed and during that time issues were worked out. Some of these "fixes" had to first be approved by the government so there was a delay there, but by the time the P-38J was introduced (August 1943) many of these issues were worked out. These issues and their time line to fix would compare to other fighters. If you research mission capable rates these so called issues in the SWP they didn't factor much.

The generator issue was solved with the H and definitely with the J model, I believe and the only issue with the generator is you had only one, a configuration initially accepted by the AAF. Again, show evidence that PTO pilots complained continually about the heater issue which would actually exist in any twin engine aircraft that used engine heat exchangers in lieu of a dedicated heater unit.
Schweik said:
If they had sorted out the problems with the P-38 more quickly I think it would have become the long range escort fighter for 8th AF and would have shortened the war. It definitely could have shortened the campaign in the MTO.
Click to expand...
I can somewhat agree but at the same time if you researched those who gave a negative critique of the P-38 in Europe, they did not like flying a twin engine fighter. It was more complicated and harder to train new pilots on. There were many improvements offered by Lockheed and it took awhile for approval or these recommendations were rejected.

 
Schweik said:
Right. And -5F to -11F is still damn cold no matter where on the globe you are...
Click to expand...

Sure, but I can tell you an aircraft heating system that runs on bleed air is going to heat a cockpit/cabin better in an aircraft operating at -5 than one operating at -25. Its only going to warm the cabin so much. So a pilot operating a P-38 at 19,000 ft is probably going to be more comfortable than one operating at lets say 27,000 ft. Granted I have never operated an unpressurized aircraft at those altitudes, so I am purely guessing. I have, however, crewed military helicopters at 12,000 ft, and the cabin temp was more easily maintained at altitudes much lower. There were times at the higher altitudes I did not feel the heater was working.
 

I have sat in an APC when it was about 10F (above Zero) and I can tell you if you are just sitting there it gets damn cold fast. Hiking is a little different. It certainly does help to dress properly regardless, but hours long flights at 25,000 ft were probably pretty chilly.

I suspect the reason you don't hear the same litany of complaints about the P-38, or not as loudly as it were, as you do from England or North Africa, is because the P-38 units did a lot better in the Pacific. Nobody was pressing them trying to find out what was wrong, because by and large they were making it work. Against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica they had more trouble.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Now that's a post war "cliche" If you examine the operational history of any US Figher in service during WW2, there were issues. P-47 also had compressibility issues, P-51 stability issues, for example (there are many more)
Click to expand...
Did the wind tunnel research on the P-38 introduce the term "compressibility" into the aviation lexicon? The Typhoon is said to have had compressibility issues with its thick wings and chin radiator, but previously the Tornado (same plane with a Vulture engine) was said to have dive and stability issues with the radiator further back even though it is obviously the same compressibility problem.
 
Now you're speculating. I do know that there was a trouble reporting system for the P-38 that was funneled through their field service group (I worked with some guys that were in that group during the war years). I don't know if you ever served in the military but the contractor is continually receiving feedback from operators and I know for a fact this was the norm 78 years ago as it is today. I can't argue that the Pacific had a better environment to operate in if you don't consider areas with hostile bugs and wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
1
Views
254
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register