Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Can you please provide primary source documentation supporting your statement? If lacking primary sources, autobiographical or well researched histories? Thanks.
Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero
- Thread starter contrails16
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fighter opinion zero fighter
Can you please provide primary source documentation supporting your statement? If lacking primary sources, autobiographical or well researched histories? Thanks.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Hi Greyman and thanks for the info. You have my curiosity aroused now regarding 109E armour. Care to flesh that out some? I'll see what I may have from the PRO/NA.
That is the scheme of 109F and G armour, not that of E
Your source on that?
- Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces (Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum)
- - Bf 109 E-1s during the Battle of Britain (Bf 109 E-1s during the Battle of Britain - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum)
RT
June 14th, 2006 13:09
Re: Bf 109 E-1s during the Battle of BritainBased on the losses, any damage, total 1100 bf109, from 1.july till 31.dec.40
E /to check after with wn/ 85
E-1 356
E-2.. 3
E-3 63
E-4 521
E-7 54
F-1 4
from 1.july to 15.sept.
E 58
E-1 200
E-3 63
E-4 270
E-7 13
RT's info is in the line with the info given in Francis K. Mason's Messerschmitt Bf 109 B,C,D,E in LW and foreign service, Osprey 1973 but RT's timeframe is longer to 31 Dec 1940 vs 31 Oct 1940. Your second tier units seems to have been surprisingly active over GB. As you see 109E-1s still even after 15 Sept 1940. Those marked simply as E are those of which German reports did not give the sub-type.
Last edited:
From some digging around I did in another thread:
For what it's worth - I've been going over examinations of 109 wrecks during the Battle of Britain - and made a graph. Any 109s that had their armament noted were included.
I think machine-gun-only 109s played a much bigger role in the 1940 battles than most realize.
For what it's worth - I've been going over examinations of 109 wrecks during the Battle of Britain - and made a graph. Any 109s that had their armament noted were included.
I think machine-gun-only 109s played a much bigger role in the 1940 battles than most realize.
I'll try to go over what I have this weekend and see if I can get a clearer picture.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Thank you Greyman.
ODonovan
Airman 1st Class
I noted mention of two things about the Zero, earlier in the thread, those being wing flutter and a limit of 5Gs on pull-outs from dives. They both tie into a report I read, sometime back, of a Zero which was being tested by the Americans. I want to say it was the "Akutan Zero," but it may have been one captured later in the war. Given the report was going to have some anti-Japanese bias almost as a matter of course, a couple things still stood out for me. I'm working from memory here, but I think I remember it fairly well.
The "wing flutter" was mentioned as "wingtip warping." It was said that, in any turns approaching 6Gs, the tips of the wings would begin to bend. If the G forces weren't reduced, the conclusion was the wings would rip themselves off. This would explain the "squared-off corners" in the maneuver described earlier in the thread, short moments of higher Gs, which could not be sustained.
In an interview video I watched with an American WWII naval pilot, the pilot bluntly stated that, at 6Gs, a Zero's wings would come off. That would go a long way toward explaining "Swede" Vejtasa being able to out dogfight three zeroes while flying a Dauntless, which was featured in the "Dogfights" TV series episode "Long Odds." Due to the facts 1) the Dauntless had such structural strength, and 2) Swede was able to pull higher Gs as a trained divebomber pilot, he was able to get his plane around 180 degrees each time, and still have time to build up some speed, before the Japanese pilots could swing around for their next pass.
Overall, I found the article accurate in some places and lacking in others. I do agree the Zero was never a super plane, even though it somewhat seemed like it when the war started. The "rookie" American pilots flying Wildcats had a positive kill ratio over the Zero, from the beginning of the war. By the end of 1942, that ratio (Wildcat vs Zero) was claimed to be almost six to one in favor of the Americans. Even taking exaggerated kill claims into account, it was still pretty grim for the Zero. It only got worse for them from there on.
-Irish
The "wing flutter" was mentioned as "wingtip warping." It was said that, in any turns approaching 6Gs, the tips of the wings would begin to bend. If the G forces weren't reduced, the conclusion was the wings would rip themselves off. This would explain the "squared-off corners" in the maneuver described earlier in the thread, short moments of higher Gs, which could not be sustained.
In an interview video I watched with an American WWII naval pilot, the pilot bluntly stated that, at 6Gs, a Zero's wings would come off. That would go a long way toward explaining "Swede" Vejtasa being able to out dogfight three zeroes while flying a Dauntless, which was featured in the "Dogfights" TV series episode "Long Odds." Due to the facts 1) the Dauntless had such structural strength, and 2) Swede was able to pull higher Gs as a trained divebomber pilot, he was able to get his plane around 180 degrees each time, and still have time to build up some speed, before the Japanese pilots could swing around for their next pass.
Overall, I found the article accurate in some places and lacking in others. I do agree the Zero was never a super plane, even though it somewhat seemed like it when the war started. The "rookie" American pilots flying Wildcats had a positive kill ratio over the Zero, from the beginning of the war. By the end of 1942, that ratio (Wildcat vs Zero) was claimed to be almost six to one in favor of the Americans. Even taking exaggerated kill claims into account, it was still pretty grim for the Zero. It only got worse for them from there on.
-Irish
SBD got self-sealing tanks in SBD-3 version, IIRC the MC still had some SBD-2s stationed on Midway in June 1942, maybe also some SBD-3s and of course Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators, I doubt that the latter had S-S-tanks either.
but this are as built or as they were when damaged?
Otherwise I agree with your message but there was that manoeuvre, called hineri-komi, first used in combat in China in late 30s, helped A5M Claude and later Zero pilots in combat against more agile Chinese bi-planes. It was also effective against Allies fighters during the WW2. It is described with a drawing e.g. in Millman's A6M Zero-sen Aces 1940-42 Osprey AotA 137 on page 46 and in Osamu Tagaya's Imperial Japanese Naval Aviator 1937 - 45 Osprey Warrior 55, short description on page 46, longer on p. 61 and a drawing on Plate B
In RT's data as given in LW loss/damage reports and as Greyman's graph and photos of those that crashed in England show at least most still had mg-wings, so still E-1s or E-1/Bs
I got the idea that the Reisen was just too flimsy, that one mistake could take it out and most likely kill the pilot in the process. In other words, Reisen pilots had to be not just good but outright excellent when getting into combat, because you probably would not survive learning by combat.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
No, that comes from the Japanese super pilot myth.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
And F4F-3s did not come with armor or self-sealing tanks. All that had to come from factory supplied kits which were just starting delivery around the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. For example, VF-42 left Norfolk aboard Yorktown, as I recall, around 15 Dec 1941. They had the self-sealing tank liners aboard but not installed. Installation was complete by the time they got to San Diego . . . where, after much standing on desks and pointing fingers, they were able to draw the armor kits which were installed over the next leg west.
From JG 26's book by Donald Caldwell, p29, after the battle for France the Geschwader was re-equipped with E-4's before being redeployed, all were fitted with seat and back armor as well as armored wind screens.
E-4's onwards had armour, the eight .303's had proven to be effective against Luftwaffe pilots during the battle for France.
It was posted on here in another thread I believe that almost 40% of Bf 109's in the BoB were MG only, you can see by the graft how all the MG versions were replaced by cannons models especially from October onwards, the front line squadrons got them first and then they filtered down as they became available.
If you pick up Caldwell's later JG 26 War Diary Vol 1 and open it, you will pick up 109E-1 losses of the JG, e.g. on pp. 60, 63, 65 etc. Those are mid August 40 losses.
