Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Corsair did well against the Zero, and post war US evaluations found the 190 and Corsair to be pretty much equal. I think 190 would have done fine.

Not sure where the post is, but someone posted copies of the reports here once.

 

[GregP]

Corsair absolutely DID do well, and you could well be correct. I would hazard that the Corsairs that were doing so well were also flown largely by combat veterans who, and this is the important part, had experience both in the Pacific and also against the IJN Zeros and pilots, even the good ones, as their average pilot ability was slowly degrading over time due to abbrviated training and inability to sortie as many comnbat veterans as they would have liked.

So initially, the Fw 190, if flown by people new to the Pacific and new to Japanese oppostion, might not have a great ride, but the Fw 190 was a first-class fighter by all accounts, and it's success in the end could probably be anticipated in any what-if, once the pilots were accustomed to the Pacific. That assumes the Fw 190 would be sortied versus the Zero.

In the real world, the Fw 190, had it showed up, would have showed up on the Japanese side and would be flown against the Allies. Now THAT could have been interesting, particularly if flown by or had some significant partication by experience Luftwaffe veterans. I have bever seen a discussion of whether or not the tactics used by the Allied pilots in the Pacific were materially different from the tactics used in the ETO. Most of the discussions I have read have concentrated on the differences in tactics between the Germans and Japanese pilots.

That could be another good what-if. Suppose a reasonable contingent of Luftwaffe veterans did not want to surrender, and decided to go fly with the Japanese ... had the Fw 190s ans spares to DO it. But I won't suggest we pursue that because most of the great Luftwaffe aces were, first and foremost, German patriots, and wanted the war to end as badly as we did. They largely wanted to go home, rebuild, and get on with life, not continue the fighting at all costs. Although most, if not all, of the Luftwaffe aces were members of the National Socialist Party, a large portion were not really "into" it and joined out of political necessity, not out of a desire to blindly follow Hitler. They were fighting for Germany, and wanted to end the poverty caused directly by the treaty of Versailles and resume normal life. Without wanting to go political, I was just pointing out that I doubt you could get a large contingent of them to willingly uproot and go fight in the Pacific when Germany was falling. Their wives and families were in Germany, not half a world away. So it is a doubtful option to pursue with any sense that it might have been able to happen.

 

[grampi]

I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...

 

[Shortround6]

Zero's wing was about the same size, varied from about 230sq ft to 240sq ft depending on exact model of the Zero, later ones had the lower figure. Since the Zero was lighter it didn't take much else.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Greg,

A good "What if" would be more like Hitler sending over a contingent of Luftwaffe pilots and support crews to fight with the Japanese in 1942. Not sure the logistics would work out but a couple of squadrons of 190's would be a mighty big jolt for the allies, especially on top of the whole Zero shock issue.

 

[grampi]

Zero's wing was about the same size, varied from about 230sq ft to 240sq ft depending on exact model of the Zero, later ones had the lower figure. Since the Zero was lighter it didn't take much else.

I don't see the Zero's wing having nearly as much area as the Spit...

 

[Shortround6]

Just going by what most sources/descriptions say.
Early Zero had 2ft 6in more wingspan than a Spit with normal wing tips. Or 1ft 5in less span than a P-47
Trying to use pictures to judge areas doesn't work well.
Latter Zeros clipped the wings a bit.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...

Not to pick nits but I imagine the Zero could out turn damn near anything it wanted to.

 

[Shortround6]

Except for.....................................The Ki 43 Oscar.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I Will sit in penalty box two minutes...feel shame.

Of course, maybe the Zero just didn't WANT to out turn the Oscar...

Never thought of that did ya?

 

[GregP]

I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right there in wing loading, but the Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models. It probably got very slightly worse in later models, and was always very close to the Ki-43 in maneuverability. I'd bet some biplanes could out-turn a Zero, but I'd also not choose a biplane in WWII. The A6M-2 had almost the same wing area as the Spitfire Mk I. but lost a small bit when they clipped the wingtips. The difference in weight more than made up the slightly smaller wing area.

For the A6M-2, I have 21.3 lbs. sq ft at normal takeoff weight. For the A6M-3 Model 32, I have 22.2 lbs/sq ft. For the A6M-5 I have 26.3 lbs/sq ft.

For a Spitfire Mk. I, I have 24.2 lbs/ sq ft at normal takeoff weight. For the Spitfire Mk. V, I have 28.0 lbs/sq ft. For the Spitfire Mk. IX, I have 30.4 lbs/sq ft. For the Spitfire XIV, I have 35.1 lbs/sq ft.

Both planes got heavier as they developed, but the Spitfire got heavier by a wider margin. The Zero should be able to out-turn it easily as the airfoil is pretty well optimized FOR a turning fight. The Zero was deadly at 180 – 280 mph and sort of out of its element any faster. It was OK slower, but not much … maybe down to 150 mph, aerobatics were easy, with a gentle stall, preceeded by plenty of warning buffeting. A premier dogfighter that was a bit less than wonderful at 340 mph.

 

[pinsog]

I have a hard time imagining any plane being able to outturn a Spit with its huge amount of wing area of that elliptical wing. If the Zero outturned it, I'd sure like to know it was able to...

The Wildcat could outturn a Spitfire, an F4F-4 model of all things. I wouldn't have believed that but they were testing the Wildcat for the Royal Navy and they were surprised that it could turn inside of a Spitfire, BUT and I couldn't believe this either, the Spitfire could out roll the Wildcat. I would have bet anything that it was the other way around

 

[pinsog]

The picture in my head of the FW190 being used in the Pacific is: Zero's and FW190's take off together on a combined mission. halfway to the target all the FW190's run out of gas and fall out of the sky. Zero pilots shake there heads, fly on to the target, fight the Americans, fly back over large contingent of German pilots floating in the ocean halfway to target, shake their heads again and return to base.

 

[Shortround6]

I think the Zero was the tightest-turning monoplane fighter. The Ki. 43 Oscar was right tehre in wing loading, but teh Zero ws slightly better, at least in the early models.

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Ki 43s better turning ability came from the combat or butterfly flap.

which changes not only the square footage but the lift co-efficient of the wing (at least until you get to the aileron).

Trying to fly at 300mph plus might be a bit of problem with the flaps deployed however????
I believe the combat setting was 8 degrees?

Wing loading is a very good place to start but planes that are close to each other might have other features or attributes that change things a few percent (actual lift co-efficient at angle of attack used for hard turn?)

 

[parsifal]

There is no doubt in my mind that both the Corsair and the FW 190 were superior technologically to the Zero. Yet, in terms of historical and military importance, neither the German or the American a/c could hold a candle to the Zero. In the case of the corsair, it is hard to justify even its very existence, though at the time of its development, no-one could know this.


The Japanese were significantly influenced in their decision to go to war in 1941 by the knowledge of the Zero's capabilities. They were held back from going to war 1939-1940 against the west, in part at least, because of the range limitations of their existing fighter inventory, and the performance limitations disclosed during the border conflicts with the Soviets. The abilities of the Zeke to escort at long range and then demolish any opposition it encountered once at the target gave a measure of confidence to the Japanese that they could attack the wests far eastern outposts and overwhelm them with high levels of confidence. Their confidence was well founded, and for most of 1942, the Zekes were able to dominate the disputed airspace despite being outnumbered in the vital TOs from an early stage. From early March 1942 through to august, there were around 35 Zeroes based at Rabaul (and its various satellites fields), against this meagre defence, the allies were already pitting in excess of 700 a/c by August 1942.


Against odds like that, no amount of skill or technical excellence is going to see the Japanese through to victory. Once the americans had their six in terms of aircraft quality, tactics and experience, and with the odds lengthening even further as time went by, the results became so one sided against the Japanese as to be laughable as much as they were tragic.


If anything the Corsair was a liability to the Americans. Most of the hard fighting and path to victory had already been done by the time the corsair stumbled like a drunken sailor into the battlefield. The changeover to the new type was a totally unnecessary jump in technology, and its introduction, with all the types nuances had to be a constriction on readiness rates for some time. The general lull in the pace of operations in 1943 after the fantastic victories of 1942 certainly suggest that the changeovers to new technologies embodied in the hellcat and the corsair were an overall impediment to victory. The Americans would have been better served to press on with even greater numbers of F4Fs, P-40s and P-39s .to simply swamp the Japanese in the first half of 1943 rather than pause and mess about with these newer types as the inevitable wrinkles in their deployment became apparent.


The FW 190 was probably slightly more relevant than the Corsair. It at least had a demoralising effect on the RAF as the British realised that they were technologically eclipsed by this new fighter. The Spit V was just not competitive against the FW-190. However one does wonder about its necessity, as 109s were also superior to the second gen spits until the arrival of the spit IX.

 

[Shortround6]

The ditch the Corsair and F6F idea holds up well with hindsight. At the time expecting the Japanese to fail to field better fighters in numbers could have been a serious mistake.
How many threads do we have on a big wing KI 44 instead of mass production of the KI 43 in the last two/three years of the war?
Japanese had done a better job of building the Ki 61?
Japanese had switched to the Kinsei engine for the Zero sooner than the summer of 1945?
These are "fixes" the Japanese might have followed. But as it was the
Escorting Helldivers with Wildcats might have been interesting, or should the Americans have scrapped the Helldiver and kept the Dauntless as the main carrier attack bomber?
The F6F went into combat about 6 months before the N1K1-J Shiden, what happens IF the Japanese had NOT built the floatplane version and instead had started cranking out even 1400-1500hp Shidens powered by the Kasei engine and not waited for the Homare?
F4Fs would have fared how well without the F6Fs?

With hindsight we know ALL the mistakes the Japanese made. If the Japanese had made fewer (even if not perfect) and the Americans tried to bull their way through with old fighters they still could have won but at how much higher cost and would it have really shortened the war that much if the Americans had taken higher losses?

 

[parsifal]

Im less critical of the Hellcat than the Corsair, but a decision needed to be made on one or the other, not both. but even the F6f was essentially a wartime luxury, a trinket that really no other country could afford. In my opinion some form of "stretched" F4F was a better option to a completely new airframe from the point of view of winning the war.


The "we needed to develop newer types because we could not know what the other side was up to" seems a fair argument to mount until we look a little closer at the details. A stretched F4F would, or should, have been relatively seamless development of the existing type, beginning to appear in numbers from the beginning of 1942, ramping up thereafter in say 3 months. It would have allowed the Allies to keep pressing post Guadacanal at a time when the Japanese were desperate to rest and reinforce their shattered front line forces. Work on the "stretched' F4 might have begun June 1941 or earlier, if the massive efforts being poured into the F6F and the f4U were just scrapped


In other words, stretching existing designs actually reduces the risk of a runaway technology lead by the Japanese, because they are not given any opportunity to recover and are used to wipe the floor a lot earlier than they were. Detouring off to design, develop, perfect and deploy not one, but two completely new types is poor management in my opinion. If the US had been in trouble at any stage, tyhey would have been in more trouble because they wanted some new toys to play with, not less trouble. .

 

[buffnut453]

Greg,

A good "What if" would be more like Hitler sending over a contingent of Luftwaffe pilots and support crews to fight with the Japanese in 1942. Not sure the logistics would work out but a couple of squadrons of 190's would be a mighty big jolt for the allies, especially on top of the whole Zero shock issue.

Or the Japanese could have reverse-engineered this beast which they received in 1943:

 

[Shortround6]

We have a few threads on this (or more than few) and there seems to be a bit of trouble with "stretching" an F4F. Like what engine are you going to use? The R-1830 didn't really go anywhere for several years and then staggered up to 1350hp for take-off and about 100hp more at altitude than the 1941-42 engines and that was in 1944/45
Changing to the R-2600 was looked at twice by Grumman and they decided that a new airframe was needed to get the Best out of the engine. Swapping a single stage 2 speed R-2600 for the existing two stage R-1830 means over 400lbs of engine weight. A bigger prop (or four blades if you don't want to change the landing gear much). A bigger tail to counter act the torque and..........
The first FM-2 with the 1300hp R-1820 9 cylinder radial was't delivered until August of 1943. later ones got the 1350hp engine with stronger crankshaft. But with only a single stage-two speed supercharger power was 1000hp at 16,600ft. performance at altitudes above 20,000 would be increasingly disappointing. What pasted over some of the differences in powerplant between the F4F-4 and the FM-2 was the FM-2 was about 650lbs lighter. In part due to the engine and in part due to having only 4 guns and in part????

Only other option is swiping R-2000s from C-54s, production doesn't exceed more than a couble dozen a month until June of 1942, yes perhaps they could have change the priority a bit. basically it was an R-1830 with a bore job. More power for take-off but power at altitude showed very little difference. 1100hp at 16,000ft military power for a 1590lb engine.

I am having trouble seeing where the stretch is going to occur.

 

[parsifal]

If they cant stretch the f4, then there is a better case for the F6f, but why then also proceed with the F4u