Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Schweik]

Of course it would, but the allies in 1941 were officially UK and Russia and primarily concerned with defence. Nice to think about flying to Hamburg and Paris but you will meet Bf109s

I think the point is if you had (good) fighters with that kind of range you wouldn't have to stay on the defensive. You could raid their airfields before they took off. You could escort your bombers to Hamburg and start bombing them back. You could bomb their fleet and pre-empt any invasion activity. If you were the Russians you could destroy their supply lines long before they even get to Stalingrad.

If you have ever been in a fist fight - defense and counter punching is fine but it helps a lot if you can put some pressure back on your opponent at the same time.

Of course you also have to have enough fighters and pilots to go on the offensive and England and Russia probably didn't in 1941.

S

 

[GrauGeist]

Of course it would, but the allies in 1941 were officially UK and Russia and primarily concerned with defence. Nice to think about flying to Hamburg and Paris but you will meet Bf109s

And Fw190s!

 

[pbehn]

I think the point is if you had (good) fighters with that kind of range you wouldn't have to stay on the defensive. You could raid their airfields before they took off. You could escort your bombers to Hamburg and start bombing them back. You could bomb their fleet and pre-empt any invasion activity. If you were the Russians you could destroy their supply lines long before they even get to Stalingrad.

If you have ever been in a fist fight - defense and counter punching is fine but it helps a lot if you can put some pressure back on your opponent at the same time.

Of course you also have to have enough fighters and pilots to go on the offensive and England and Russia probably didn't in 1941.

S

Yes if you have them in 1941 but who had them and how many? The Japanese had a huge area of widely spread targets around the pacific and frequently had the advantage of surprise. There was never any surprise in Europe neither were there any bombers that could make any impact. Any attack against Europe in 1941 was at the same disadvantages as the LW had in 1940 in the BoB.

 

[Schweik]

Yes if you have them in 1941 but who had them and how many? The Japanese had a huge area of widely spread targets around the pacific and frequently had the advantage of surprise. There was never any surprise in Europe neither were there any bombers that could make any impact. Any attack against Europe in 1941 was at the same disadvantages as the LW had in 1940 in the BoB.

I disagree since their main disadvantage was the range of their fighters.

If you had zeroes and whatever long range bombers (I don't know - Wellingtons?) you could attack German installations in France from almost any direction - from the Bay of Biscay. You could start hitting their rail yards, airfields etc. if the Japanese could do it to the Americans in the Philippines they could do it to the Germans in Belgium or France.

I mean what if you literally had zeroes. Sure you would have a high attrition rate but you had that anyway in the BoB. If you had the ability to hit back - you could shorten the battle quite a bit.

I would say this - a Zero, A6M2- was arguably as good as a Spitfire MK I or II in a one-on-one fight, and certainly better than a Hurricane. Superior maneuverability of course, but also 20mm cannons and climb like a jet. Add to that 3,000 km range...? You don't think that would help A LOT? I think that helps explain the value of the Zero.

 

[BiffF15]

Apparently being able to fight 200 miles away is much more important than being able to fight at 20,000 ft.

Pbehn,

A little more modern tie into range versus performance. In 2000 we took our F15As to Lange AB, Germany to fight the Luftwaffe MiG29As. Both of us were without external tanks. I did a one vs one Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM or dogfight) sortie. We took off at 1255. I used full afterburner, he used Mil (non afterburner or AB). I climbed in min AB, he did not. I did two 180 degree full AB warm up turns. He did not. We then fought and when he called knock it off (KIO) for bingo fuel, I reformed on him for a quick battle damage assessment (BDA) as he pointed at the field about 10 miles away. He called the KIO at 1307 or 12 minutes after takeoff. I then went and found another fight before RTB.

The moral of the story is I would never fear an airstrike or having him show up in my pattern unannounced. Also if I were to participate in a strike against his field or something he is protecting my goal would be to get him airborne early then delay the fight. He will bingo out in the middle of the fight and he will die trying to get back on the deck.

If you have a tool that your opponent does not then you can do something he can't. Use it wisely and it's an advantage.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

Pbehn,

A little more modern tie into range versus performance. In 2000 we took our F15As to Lange AB, Germany to fight the Luftwaffe MiG29As. Both of us were without external tanks. I did a one vs one Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM or dogfight) sortie. We took off at 1255. I used full afterburner, he used Mil (non afterburner or AB). I climbed in min AB, he did not. I did two 180 degree full AB warm up turns. He did not. We then fought and when he called knock it off (KIO) for bingo fuel, I reformed on him for a quick battle damage assessment (BDA) as he pointed at the field about 10 miles away. He called the KIO at 1307 or 12 minutes after takeoff. I then went and found another fight before RTB.

The moral of the story is I would never fear an airstrike or having him show up in my pattern unannounced. Also if I were to participate in a strike against his field or something he is protecting my goal would be to get him airborne early then delay the fight. He will bingo out in the middle of the fight and he will die trying to get back on the deck.

If you have a tool that your opponent does not then you can do something he can't. Use it wisely and it's an advantage.

Cheers,
Biff

Biff, the point I was making is that if your airfields are being attacked by bombers escorted by fighters at 20 to 25,00 ft the first thing to do is stop it, not to make plans to bomb a city on their northern coast or a capital city just captured by your enemy who he couldn't give a damn about.

 

[BiffF15]

Biff, the point I was making is that if your airfields are being attacked by bombers escorted by fighters at 20 to 25,00 ft the first thing to do is stop it, not to make plans to bomb a city on their northern coast or a capital city just captured by your enemy who he couldn't give a damn about.

Pbehn,

Understood. You must deal with the gators closest to the canoe first. Then when the opportunity arises kill the nest and you don't have a gator problem for long.

The Spitfire and Bf109 are both what I would classify as Defensive Counter Air (DCA) or point defense fighters. They are pinnacle examples of that. It took until the Mustang to find a good solution to the range / performance equation.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

I disagree since their main disadvantage was the range of their fighters.

If you had zeroes and whatever long range bombers (I don't know - Wellingtons?) you could attack German installations in France from almost any direction - from the Bay of Biscay. You could start hitting their rail yards, airfields etc. if the Japanese could do it to the Americans in the Philippines they could do it to the Germans in Belgium or France.

I mean what if you literally had zeroes. Sure you would have a high attrition rate but you had that anyway in the BoB. If you had the ability to hit back - you could shorten the battle quite a bit.

I would say this - a Zero, A6M2- was arguably as good as a Spitfire MK I or II in a one-on-one fight, and certainly better than a Hurricane. Superior maneuverability of course, but also 20mm cannons and climb like a jet. Add to that 3,000 km range...? You don't think that would help A LOT? I think that helps explain the value of the Zero.

In all discussions there is a time element. How many zeros did Japan have in 1939, or in 1940, then 1941? Between 1939 and 1943 there was no country able to undertake a strategic campaign worth the name in daylight.

 

[pbehn]

Pbehn,

Understood. You must deal with the gators closest to the canoe first. Then when the opportunity arises kill the nest and you don't have a gator problem for long.

The Spitfire and Bf109 are both what I would classify as Defensive Counter Air (DCA) or point defense fighters. They are pinnacle examples of that. It took until the Mustang to find a good solution to the range / performance equation.

Cheers,
Biff

Seriously Biff until late 1943/44 what would you want to escort in daylight? Wellingtons Lancasters and early B24- B17s? The whole "enchilada" of the allied campaign came together in 1943/4 you cannot just leap forward 2 years, the UK didn't even have the airfields, Oh and there was a little problem in the Atlantic at the time.

 

[Schweik]

In all discussions there is a time element. How many zeros did Japan have in 1939, or in 1940, then 1941? Between 1939 and 1943 there was no country able to undertake a strategic campaign worth the name in daylight.

Strategic is overrated. I'm thinking more Operational. Airfields, bridges, ships and railyards, rather than factories or God forbid cities. Wellingtons had an amazing range too (looked 'em up) and carried a good (4500 lb) bomb load. With effective fighter protection they could be pretty dangerous Operational pests IMO. Give me 200 A6Ms and 100 Wellingtons and I'll cause the Germans some headaches.

Just quickly looking in Wikipedia, it appears like they had about 1,500 A6Ms by April 1942 (65 model 11, 740 Model 21 built by Mitsubishi, 800 by Nakajima). Middle of 1941 they had maybe half that number.

Model 32 (A6M3) with two speed supercharger Sakae 21 came out in April 1942, and Model 22 came out in Dec 1942.

A6M2 in particular was a really good fighter for 1941 IMO. They didn't really improve it though until the A6M5 in August 1943, which is too late.

S

 

[Schweik]

Seriously Biff until late 1943/44 what would you want to escort in daylight? Wellingtons Lancasters and early B24- B17s? The whole "enchilada" of the allied campaign came together in 1943/4 you cannot just leap forward 2 years, the UK didn't even have the airfields, Oh and there was a little problem in the Atlantic at the time.

Of course in any 'what if' scenario of this type it quickly gets absurd. I'm not trying to re-fight WW2 just trying to use an analogy to point out that the A6M zero was definitely not overrated and was a seriously dangerous plane and a nice weapon to have in your arsenal.

Yes it's true that with improved tactics and well trained pilots in 1942 Zeros were checked by P-40s and F4Fs - but that didn't mean they were dominated. Allies basically broke even against them at that point. Even in 1943 with a good pilot a Zero was dangerous. They shot down Pappy Boyington in one and he was no joke in his Corsair. Guys like Nishizawa were still racking up kills.

The mistake the Japanese made was not improving it a lot faster. Between 1940 and 1942 the Spitfire went from the 1 to the 5 to the lethal 9. Bf 109 went from the E to the F-2 and 4 to the G-2 and G-6. Even the humble P-40 went from a 1050 hp P-40B with two heavy and 4 light mgs to a 1,350 hp K or F with 6 .50 cals.

But like I said before I'm not of the school that just because the design didn't hold up through the whole war meant it wasn't a great plane.


Damnit as a result of this conversation now I have to "fly" a mission of A6Ms vs 109s on Il2 and I also want to buy a 1/72 scale Wellington and make it.

Sadly I have no F-15 to fly or even a Cessna.

 

[pbehn]

Strategic is overrated. I'm thinking more Operational. Airfields, bridges, ships and railyards, rather than factories or God forbid cities. Wellingtons had an amazing range too (looked 'em up) and carried a good (4500 lb) bomb load. With effective fighter protection they could be pretty dangerous Operational pests IMO. Give me 200 A6Ms and 100 Wellingtons and I'll cause the Germans some headaches.

Just quickly looking in Wikipedia, it appears like they had about 1,500 A6Ms by April 1942 (65 model 11, 740 Model 21 built by Mitsubishi, 800 by Nakajima). Middle of 1941 they had maybe half that number.

Model 32 (A6M3) with two speed supercharger Sakae 21 came out in April 1942, and Model 22 came out in Dec 1942.

A6M2 in particular was a really good fighter for 1941 IMO. They didn't really improve it though until the A6M5 in August 1943, which is too late.

S

Which bridges and rail yards? Unless you are going to invade the enemy doesn't give a damn unless you hit Germany. The Wellington had a good range and a good bomb load but it didn't have a good range and bomb load, it was also very poorly defended like all early bombers.

 

[Schweik]

Which bridges and rail yards? Unless you are going to invade the enemy doesn't give a damn unless you hit Germany. The Wellington had a good range and a good bomb load but it didn't have a good range and bomb load, it was also very poorly defended like all early bombers.

Ok again, I am keeping in mind that this is total speculation and frankly a little ridiculous, but for the sake of discussion:

Wellington may be poorly defended (sort of - it was actually fairly well armed I'd just swap out the tail guns for 20mm cannons but whatevs) but so was a G4M let alone a Ki -21. I mean ultimately B-24s and B-17s were too poorly defended to fight on their own, right?

But protected by a swarm of zeroes ... big difference. A bf 109 would have to press home attacks to get to the bombers and that would be pretty dangerous. Substitute a swam of (unhistorical) ultra long range Spitfires. Same thing.

What targets? I say hit the airfields and all the supply arteries leading to them - the Germans have to bring fuel, ammunition, bombs, spare parts, replacement engines and crew to the airfields right? Wreck that s***t. Just like P-51s did after finishing bomber escort much later in the War.

S

 

[Shortround6]

The air wars in Europe and in the far east were way different.

No AA guns in the blue part of the map. No radar in the blue part (at least in 1941).
No telephone system to report enemy formations in some areas of the green and brown parts let alone the blue part.
Speeds and altitudes could be used in the Pacific that would have suicidal to try using in Europe.

For that favorite whipping boy for short range, the P-47, it's range depended on what you wanted it to do. It could fly over 800 miles on internal fuel but at a low speed (around 200mph) and a low altitude (5-10,000ft)
It took (clean) around 91 gallons of it's 305 gallons to warm up, take off and climb to 25,000ft. It only took 55 gallons to get to 10,000ft. At around 10,000ft that extra 36 gallons of fuel was worth around 125 miles of range at about 210mph. Combat radius has to plan for using fuel in combat and the P-47 could use up fuel over 4 times as fast at combat ratings as it did in slow cruise. Somewhat surprisingly the Zero, had it been used in Europe would have displayed a much shorter range. One book claims that while the early Zero could burn as little as 16.4 US gallons per hour at 180 kts ( altitude not given) just increasing to 190 kts increds fuel burn to 24.04 gallons an hour and 200kts took 26.15 gallons an hour. Max rated power took 91.14 gallons an hour.
Range with a 10 minute combat allowance was an astonishing 125NM. But 20 minutes of combat time chopped range to 900NM. Now try to figure what the range would be if they had to climb to even 20,000ft while the drop tank was near full and then cruise at 200kts or so.

Total fuel 228.5 US gallons (87.18 in the drop tank), 20 minutes of combat is worth about 30 gallons. Let's assume 30 gallons to get to 20,000ft (P-40E needed 40 gallons), that leaves about 160 gallons. At speeds of over 200 knts the extra low fuel consumption of the Sakae engine will tend to fade out.

Granted if you can't get into fight 200 miles away because you lack range you have problems, but if you can't climb to 25,000ft before the bombers have come and gone then you don't have much of an interceptor regardless of how rugged the plane is or how many bombs it can tote for ground attack.

British had somewhat solved the range problem on the Spitfire with the MK VIII (123 Imp gallons = 148 US gallons). All were sent overseas as the range problem was judged not that critical in Europe (other planes could do the long range escort).

I believe the US received about 600 Spitfires (reverse lend lease) many of which were used in North Africa/Med to provide top cover for those OH so versatile P-40s and P-39s.

 

[BiffF15]

Seriously Biff until late 1943/44 what would you want to escort in daylight? Wellingtons Lancasters and early B24- B17s? The whole "enchilada" of the allied campaign came together in 1943/4 you cannot just leap forward 2 years, the UK didn't even have the airfields, Oh and there was a little problem in the Atlantic at the time.

Pbehn,

I concur. The early B17 B24 escort problems were handled as best that could be done. Either make a longer ranged fighter, change your target set, or accept / minimize the losses.

My point with my earlier comments centered on the age old apples and oranges comparison between the Spit, 109 and 51.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Schweik]

I believe the US received about 600 Spitfires (reverse lend lease) many of which were used in North Africa/Med to provide top cover for those OH so versatile P-40s and P-39s.

Dude I think you are mixing your metaphors - we were talking about A6Ms where do P-40s come into it?

Also

Range with a 10 minute combat allowance was an astonishing 125NM.

Lolwut?

I see your point about being able to get further when you can safely drive slow and therefore Zeros are no good - but there are two issues with it.

One, it's not going to lose that much range give me a break. You don't go from1600 miles range to Spitfire range just because you have to fly at a little faster cruise speed.

Two, you could still fly way out over the sea to attack from the Bay of Biscay or something like I was saying earlier.

(Also, nice anti submarine aircraft too!)

As for all that climb to altitude stuff, are you talking about A6M or P-40? I couldn't wade through that.

S

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok again, I am keeping in mind that this is total speculation and frankly a little ridiculous, but for the sake of discussion:

Wellington may be poorly defended (sort of - it was actually fairly well armed I'd just swap out the tail guns for 20mm cannons but whatevs) but so was a G4M let alone a Ki -21. I mean ultimately B-24s and B-17s were too poorly defended to fight on their own, right?

But protected by a swarm of zeroes ... big difference. A bf 109 would have to press home attacks to get to the bombers and that would be pretty dangerous. Substitute a swam of (unhistorical) ultra long range Spitfires. Same thing.

What targets? I say hit the airfields and all the supply arteries leading to them - the Germans have to bring fuel, ammunition, bombs, spare parts, replacement engines and crew to the airfields right? Wreck that s***t. Just like P-51s did after finishing bomber escort much later in the War.

S

Just swapping out MGs for cannon isn't that simple. Can the mount handle the recoil? How much will the weight for the cannon plus sufficient ammo cause a performance penalty?

And "swarms" of Zeros were not enough protection for the G4M just as "swarms" of Bf109s were not enough for the Do17s and He111s. Taking it bit further, "swarms" of P-51s weren't enough to protect the B-24s and B-17s.

In a bombing campaign, you have to concentrate on what will set the enemy back the furthest. Bombing bridges, marshalling yards and other infrascructure sets back their ability to move supplies and troops. It also ties up manpower and replacement equipment during repairs.

Bombing airfields sets the enemy back only for as long as it takes to get the replacements and repair the tarmac/ramp, etc. but if you bomb the source of those replacement aircraft, you're killing the tree at the root.

Bombing factories, supply depots, power generation, fuel supplies and such, has an immediate effect.

 

[Shortround6]

When you are trying to compare aircraft please try to compare aircraft doing the same mission.
Long over water flights at 2-5000ft and at 180 kts or less bear no relation to what was going on Europe (not picking on the Zero, many people take the theoretical range for USN aircraft and try to use that a basis for using them as escort fighters in Europe).

The early Zero carried 141-142 US gallons without the drop tank ( and strangely less than 10 gallons difference from a P-40) . A Spitfire carried 100 US gallons. DO you really think that an extra 40 gallons is going to give hundreds of extra miles? like well over 200 miles more?

Or do you think that the Zero can retain the drop tank while fighting 109Es?
Please note the early Zero really didn't have that spectacular of a climb performance. It was good compared to some of the stuff the US had in in the first 6-12 months of the war but not so good compared to some of the European fighters. What confuses things is climb angle. The Zero had a steep climb angle.
It also wasn't that fast. This is the early ones with the single speed supercharger. Against a 109 it is slower, doesn't climb much different at some altitudes, turns better, isn't any better armed and has no protection.

 

[Schweik]

Just swapping out MGs for cannon isn't that simple. Can the mount handle the recoil? How much will the weight for the cannon plus sufficient ammo cause a performance penalty?

Gee, maybe take the 20mm tail gun off of a G4M or an He 111. Give me a break.

And "swarms" of Zeros were not enough protection for the G4M just as "swarms" of Bf109s were not enough for the Do17s and He111s. Taking it bit further, "swarms" of P-51s weren't enough to protect the B-24s and B-17s.

Actually they were. They were more than enough. You don't have to protect every single bomber every single time, you just have to do enough to keep the attrition rate reasonably low. If P-40s could do that for A-20s and B-25s in Tunisia in 1942 and 1943, then I suspect A6Ms could do it for Wellingtons in 1941. P-51s certainly did it for B-17s and B-24s in 1944.

In one day (April 26, 1943) in a single raid on Bari the DAF destroyed more than 50 Luftwaffe aircraft including 19 Bf 109s and 12 Fw 190s, with another 21 BF 109 and 42 Fw 10s damaged 40-60%. Thats almost 100 front line fighters you don't have to shoot down the hard way. Can you imagine how that might be useful or no?

In a bombing campaign, you have to concentrate (snip) Bombing airfields sets the enemy back only for as long as it takes to get the replacements and repair the tarmac/ramp, etc. but if you bomb the source of those replacement aircraft, you're killing the tree at the root.

In Tunisia they were bombing the crap out of Axis airfields and destroyed a ton of aircraft on the ground. They were also hitting the communications links, not just in the forward areas but much further back - around the airfields. This in combination did a great deal of harm to the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica. If you were in the BoB and suffering from a sustained bombing campaign you might want this too.

Bombing factories, supply depots, power generation, fuel supplies and such, has an immediate effect.

'
Tell that to Albert Speer bruh.

S

 

[Schweik]

The early Zero carried 141-142 US gallons without the drop tank ( and strangely less than 10 gallons difference from a P-40) . A Spitfire carried 100 US gallons. DO you really think that an extra 40 gallons is going to give hundreds of extra miles? like well over 200 miles more?

Yes, because that was what actually happened in the real world. The A6M had a vastly, vastly longer range than any mark of the Spitfire and it didn't get an extra 1,000 miles range due to flying over water either. I don't think any of that is controversial. To say or even imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

It also wasn't that fast. This is the early ones with the single speed supercharger. Against a 109 it is slower, doesn't climb much different at some altitudes, turns better, isn't any better armed and has no protection.

It was as fast as a Hurricane Mk 1 but much better armed, climbed much better, and was much more agile. It climbed at least as well as a Bf 109E which makes one of the favorite German tactics obsolete.

From what I understand some of the aircraft in the BoB weren't that well protected either. Regardless, two 20mm cannon can wreck any 1941 plane.

S