Maneuverability vs Speed

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Two of the F4F pilots survived as PoWs (at least for a time) so the number killed is 16 to 12. 27 Zeros were lost from all causes vs 31 F4Fs.

Lundstrom notes that 24 Zeros ended up in the water and 16 pilots died. He notes that 23 F4Fs ended up in the water and 12 pilots died.

He notes that 15 Zeros were shot down (included in the above) and 13 F4Fs were shot down (included in the above).

I'm not sure what conclusions we can make from this. I suppose we could examine the fate of each pilot that was shot down and decide if armour and/or SS tanks were a factor.

I'm sure it was a factor. But I think these numbers help make clear, it was not as much of a factor as is sometimes portrayed. It's not like the Zeros were made of matches and kindling wood while the Wildcats were flying bar-bells.

The A6Ms were much more agile and had better performance. And 20mm cannons. The F4Fs were tougher and had more ammunition, and probably more radios. It more or less equaled out, but this was later in the year (Santa Cruz was in Oct 1942), once the Americans had improved their tactics. In early 1942 the outcomes were much more in favor of the Japanese (against both US and British / Commonwealth forces).

 

[MikeMeech]

I am sure the armor and ss tanks saved many lives, and I agree it's better to have them than not. I'm just pointing out that it wasn't a panacea. Neither was a parachute though that helped save lives too.

The British put their own pilots into Hawk-75 / 'Mohawks" in India to fight the Japanese, and it lacked ss tanks and barely had any armor. Right?

Hi
Depends what you mean by "barely" as the Mohawks used by 5 and 155 Sqns. did have windscreen armour (this can be seen on photographs of the machines) and armour behind the seat. These variants were from the later orders of the French Air Force and had Cyclone engines which gave a lot of problems in their service life (there were a number of 'groundings' to fix the problems). No. 155 finally got Spitfire VIIIs on 4 January 1944, but Mohawks had previously been involved in ground attacks using light bombs and acting as 'pathfinders' for Hurricane and Vengeance aircraft during 1943.

Mike

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hi
Depends what you mean by "barely" as the Mohawks used by 5 and 155 Sqns. did have windscreen armour (this can be seen on photographs of the machines) and armour behind the seat. These variants were from the later orders of the French Air Force and had Cyclone engines which gave a lot of problems in their service life (there were a number of 'groundings' to fix the problems). No. 155 finally got Spitfire VIIIs on 4 January 1944, but Mohawks had previously been involved in ground attacks using light bombs and acting as 'pathfinders' for Hurricane and Vengeance aircraft during 1943.

Mike

I had read that most Mohawks used in India only had some back of the seat armor, and it didn't cover the head. Also they did apparently engage Ki-43s at least a couple of times (and did alright). Armored windscreen is news to me and interesting... was that one of those externally applied kits?

No self sealing fuel tanks right?

 

[pbehn]

Notice the relatively high rate of KiA for the Wildcat pilots in spite of their armor and ss tanks.

Compared to what?

 

[PAT303]

I'm not sure what conclusions we can make from this. I suppose we could examine the fate of each pilot that was shot down and decide if armour and/or SS tanks were a factor.

It's no different to driving, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive regardless of how long or short the trip is, if I crash will it save me?, well in the real world there are no rules so I can't answer that question, but do I have a better chance in a crash if I'm wearing a belt?, the answer is a definite yes. Armour, SS tanks, parachute, life raft, flares, beacon won't guarantee you won't be shot down or guarantee you will survive but the armour will stop any projectiles or shrapnel that hit it protecting the pilot, the SS tanks will suppress a fire completely or just long enough for the pilot to get out, same for the parachute and life raft, many pilots still died after using them but I'd rather take to a chute or float on the ocean giving me at least a chance than none at all. Pilots died for many many reasons and it's impossible to save them all but giving them the best chance by adding protection, even from a psychological point of view was important, they would push harder knowing that if the worst come to worst the plane will absorb punishment and air sea rescue would come looking for them.

 

[PAT303]

How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group.

Lets be honest the Devastator shouldn't have been there, it was so obsolete it didn't have the performance to get into an attack position if the ship it was attacking made evasive maneuvers, it also wouldn't have mattered if it did launch it's torpedo because they didn't work either, that attack shouldn't be used as an example in any conversation other than showing the folly of wasting experienced brave aircrew.

 

[SaparotRob]

The weight of an aircraft affects its maneuverability and its speed (at least in acceleration). So armor has an affect on performance. To quote Neil Young "you pay for this and they give you that". With all that out of the way, not providing armor protection would have been stupid. Every reference made here about lessons learned from the Spanish Civil War is my source. It doesn't matter which planes were equipped with what, per this discussion. The topic is speed versus maneuverability. No one has brought up the affects of the ashtrays equipping many US aircraft on performance. The question is: is this airplane (anecdotally famous for speed) more combat worthy than that airplane (anecdotally noted for maneuverability)? This is a rabbit hole that's not nearly as entertaining as the Ground Hog thread.
You've all been rather snippy lately so I posted a whole paragraph without a single freaking number.

 

[SaparotRob]

It's no different to driving, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive regardless of how long or short the trip is, if I crash will it save me?, well in the real world there are no rules so I can't answer that question, but do I have a better chance in a crash if I'm wearing a belt?, the answer is a definite yes. Armour, SS tanks, parachute, life raft, flares, beacon won't guarantee you won't be shot down or guarantee you will survive but the armour will stop any projectiles or shrapnel that hit it protecting the pilot, the SS tanks will suppress a fire completely or just long enough for the pilot to get out, same for the parachute and life raft, many pilots still died after using them but I'd rather take to a chute or float on the ocean giving me at least a chance than none at all. Pilots died for many many reasons and it's impossible to save them all but giving them the best chance by adding protection, even from a psychological point of view was important, they would push harder knowing that if the worst come to worst the plane will absorb punishment and air sea rescue would come looking for them.

I was still typing my pointless post when you posted this.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Lets be honest the Devastator shouldn't have been there, it was so obsolete it didn't have the performance to get into an attack position if the ship it was attacking made evasive maneuvers, it also wouldn't have mattered if it did launch it's torpedo because they didn't work either, that attack shouldn't be used as an example in any conversation other than showing the folly of wasting experienced brave aircrew.

Wrong battle.
Interesting statistic. More SBDs were lost in action prior to Midway than TBDs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Compared to what?

Percentage of KiA pilots to shot down aircraft. I would also say in comparison to the number of A6M lost.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's no different to driving, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive regardless of how long or short the trip is, if I crash will it save me?, well in the real world there are no rules so I can't answer that question, but do I have a better chance in a crash if I'm wearing a belt?, the answer is a definite yes. Armour, SS tanks, parachute, life raft, flares, beacon won't guarantee you won't be shot down or guarantee you will survive but the armour will stop any projectiles or shrapnel that hit it protecting the pilot, the SS tanks will suppress a fire completely or just long enough for the pilot to get out, same for the parachute and life raft, many pilots still died after using them but I'd rather take to a chute or float on the ocean giving me at least a chance than none at all. Pilots died for many many reasons and it's impossible to save them all but giving them the best chance by adding protection, even from a psychological point of view was important, they would push harder knowing that if the worst come to worst the plane will absorb punishment and air sea rescue would come looking for them.

I agree with all that - I am for armor and self sealing tanks. I'm definitely for parachutes and I'm definitely for robust air-sea rescue. I think all of these factors contributed to the Allied victory, and over time that relatively small difference in pilot losses added up to big numbers.

I'm just pointing out that armor and ss tanks didn't loom quite as large as some people assume vis a vis outcomes, and I think the Santa Cruz data posted by Reluctant Poster shows that pretty clearly.

 

[SaparotRob]

The USN torpedoed a light carrier and bombed some shore based targets with the TBD prior to Midway. Maybe it didn't seem as awful as it really was. It wasn't a bi-plane.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The weight of an aircraft affects its maneuverability and its speed (at least in acceleration). So armor has an affect on performance. To quote Neil Young "you pay for this and they give you that". With all that out of the way, not providing armor protection would have been stupid. Every reference made here about lessons learned from the Spanish Civil War is my source. It doesn't matter which planes were equipped with what, per this discussion. The topic is speed versus maneuverability. No one has brought up the affects of the ashtrays equipping many US aircraft on performance. The question is: is this airplane (anecdotally famous for speed) more combat worthy than that airplane (anecdotally noted for maneuverability)? This is a rabbit hole that's not nearly as entertaining as the Ground Hog thread.
You've all been rather snippy lately so I posted a whole paragraph without a single freaking number.

You need to start an ashtray vs. performance thread.
Cite your sources.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Two of the F4F pilots survived as PoWs (at least for a time) so the number killed is 16 to 12. 27 Zeros were lost from all causes vs 31 F4Fs.

Lundstrom notes that 24 Zeros ended up in the water and 16 pilots died. He notes that 23 F4Fs ended up in the water and 12 pilots died.

He notes that 15 Zeros were shot down (included in the above) and 13 F4Fs were shot down (included in the above).

I'm not sure what conclusions we can make from this. I suppose we could examine the fate of each pilot that was shot down and decide if armour and/or SS tanks were a factor.

I included the PoWs because whether you are dead or prisoner you need to be replaced. Also the Japanese didn't consider surrender to be an option. As to whether ss tanks or armor would have made a difference has to be balanced against the lost of agility the extra weight would cause. It would mean you get the chance to absorb more bullets. As far as I am concerned the Japanese made the right compromises with the Zero. I wouldn't say the same for their bombers. Bombers have no choice but to absorb punishment.

Alos why are you including the 2 Zeros lost to other causes. The 31 F4Fs doesn't.

 

[SaparotRob]

You need to start an ashtray vs. performance thread.
Cite your sources.

One of the voices in my head, Professor Propwash.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Lets be honest the Devastator shouldn't have been there, it was so obsolete it didn't have the performance to get into an attack position if the ship it was attacking made evasive maneuvers, it also wouldn't have mattered if it did launch it's torpedo because they didn't work either, that attack shouldn't be used as an example in any conversation other than showing the folly of wasting experienced brave aircrew.

Devastator? The torpedo bombers at Santa Cruz were TBFs. This is the TBF.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The weight of an aircraft affects its maneuverability and its speed (at least in acceleration). So armor has an affect on performance. To quote Neil Young "you pay for this and they give you that". With all that out of the way, not providing armor protection would have been stupid. Every reference made here about lessons learned from the Spanish Civil War is my source. It doesn't matter which planes were equipped with what, per this discussion. The topic is speed versus maneuverability. No one has brought up the affects of the ashtrays equipping many US aircraft on performance. The question is: is this airplane (anecdotally famous for speed) more combat worthy than that airplane (anecdotally noted for maneuverability)? This is a rabbit hole that's not nearly as entertaining as the Ground Hog thread.
You've all been rather snippy lately so I posted a whole paragraph without a single freaking number.

I've pointed out several examples already through the thread. People seem to prefer to focus on periferal issues. However the OP stated that his real agenda in the post was contrasting Japanese with 'Western' aircraft so that discussion wasn't really off topic.

Anyway speed vs maneuverability. Reiterating points previously pointed out:

On the speed is better side
P-51 over FW 190
Bf 109 over LaGG-3, I-16, early Yak 1 etc. [early Russian Front]
Bf 109 over Hurricane & early P-40 [BoB, North Africa]
P-38 and F4U and Hellcat over A6M and Ki-43 [South Pacific]
P-40 over Ki-43 [China / Burma]
Fw 190 over Spit V [English Channel]
Bf 109F over Spit V and Hurricane II [English Channel, North Africa]

On the maneuverability is better side
CR. 32 over I-16 [Spanish Civil War]
Gladiator over CR.42 [early North Africa]
Ki-43 over Hurricane II [Burma]
Ki-43 over P-51A [China / Burma]
A6M over Spitfire V [Darwin]
A6M over P-39 [New Guinea and Solomons]
Yak 3 over Bf 109 and Fw 190 [later Russian Front]
Iar-80 over P-38 [Romania]
F2A over Yak 1, LaGG-3 etc. [Finland]

F-86 over MiG 15 [Korean War]
MiG 19 over F-105 and F-100 [Vietnam War]

From my perspective, it is not so cut and dry.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The USN torpedoed a light carrier and bombed some shore based targets with the TBD prior to Midway. Maybe it didn't seem as awful as it really was. It wasn't a bi-plane.

The TBD was terrible. It was inferior to the Swordfish and the Albacore by every yard stick, and they were both biplanes.

The TBF / TBM was pretty good though.

 

[Greg Boeser]

One of the voices in my head, Professor Propwash.

A highly credible source.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Lets be honest the Devastator shouldn't have been there, it was so obsolete it didn't have the performance to get into an attack position if the ship it was attacking made evasive maneuvers, it also wouldn't have mattered if it did launch it's torpedo because they didn't work either, that attack shouldn't be used as an example in any conversation other than showing the folly of wasting experienced brave aircrew.

You're missing the point. The torpedo performance is irrelevant . The point is that the TBFs didn't suffer many casualties at Santa Cruz because they didn't face strong opposition.