Spitfire mk VB/Seafire vs Zero

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules



Run out of arguments ?? John so far your only argument for the Seafires superiority over the Zero seems to be that just one got shot down and that because of a radio failure, now that's a failure to be objective IMO.

Also as for staying low against FW's, well that's pretty much committing suicide. Why ? Because the FW-190 is faster at low alt than the Spitfire (Unless the Spit XII could top 580 km/h at SL) and has absolutely no problem following a Spitfire's maneuvers at high speed, the FW190 is infact far more maneuverable at high speed. Furthermore the FW190 dives and zoom climbs a lot better..

So as you might imagine it was not a very good idea for a Spitfire to fly low where'ever there were FW-190's present, hence the RAF's strict advice for its pilots not to do this.
 
According to my sources the Spitfire Mk.XII's top speed at SL was 560 km/h.

At 1.42ata the FW-190A-5's top SL speed was 567 km/h.

At 1.65ata the FW-190A-5's top SL speed was 580 km/h.

So the reason the FW's didn't come down to play might be because they hadn't seen the Spitfires, cause the FW-190 was clearly the faster of the two, and with a considerable height advantage those Spitfires were easy baits.
 
I seem to remember the kill/loss ratio of the Ta152 being touted as an indicator of its superiority (as well as it's performance and supposed handling characteristics).

Shouldn't a similar statistical record of Seafire vs Zero carry the same weight?

If we are being impartial and objective?
 
1. It's not the downing kamikazes (or bombers, or transports for that matter if that was the key target at a particular moment) was unimportant, it's that the exchange ratio between the attacking fighters and those targets isn't meaningful, can't be compared to exchange ratio's of true fighter combat. The Seafire may have been an effective kamikaze interceptor but that ratio isn't really relevant to that. As already stated, the FM-2 fulfilled a similar mission to the Seafire in '45 and had a considerably higher exchange ratio (against fighter types), does that mean its performance was better for catching kamikazes?, no the exchange ratio is just not relevant to that. Exchange ratio is a relevant measure (though still not the only one) for true fighter-fighter combat.

2. Anyone who takes *any air arm's* WWII claims at face value of discounted 'a bit' and ignores evidence of opposing losses (with excuses of course) is just kidding themselves and creating a fantasy world of air combat analysis. It's been done for years, but still leads to contradictory, and wrong, conclusions (the great majority of WWII fighter types claimed ratio's >1 against opposing fighters, I guess they were all successful?; all our children are above average, it's about the same thing but less reason for mushy analysis of fighters than children ).

3. What specific case can you give where losses in Japanese (or anybody else's actually) records are understated, evidence besides the opposing claims being higher? Allied losses were much less than Japanese claims, and often much less than German claims (though not always in latter case) too, why doesn't that call Allied loss records into question? The system of govt strictly dictated the accuracy of loss records? That's not a serious argument IMO. It needs at least some date by date specific evidence.

We saw in Darwin 1943 case that the complete 'kodochosho', original action reports, of the 202nd Air Group survived; numerous accounts of theirs say it was the only Zero unit involved. They showed 4 Zero losses in the whole campaign, with the names of the pilots lost, and names of the other pilots on the missions. The Spits were credited with several times that many Zeroes. But no evidence of wrecks, bodies or POW's challenges any of the results of individual missions described in the Japanese reports. What objective basis is there to reject those Japanese accounts?, talking about 'Tojo' and 'saving face', 'proof' via cultural sterotype ? Denying the light Zero losses over Darwin and high overclaims by the Spits there is 'denial' in the pejorative sense, no way around it.

And there's no reason to disbelieve the Seafires claimed 7 Zeroes August 15 '45 but only downed 1, considering innumerable examples of overclaims as great in combats throughout WWII by all air arms including British. There is more doubt in that case, for the reasons I already gave, the same Japanese were also engaging F6F's that morning and attributed a bunch more losses to them, there could have been some mix ups, and the greater vagaries of 'losses' suffered over own territory (do wheels up landings count? etc). But saying it was 7 or 'a bit less' is a pseudo-fact. No valid conclusion can be drawn from such as assumption. It's just assuming the conclusion you want.

4. You're essentially saying we have to ignore a clear fact, that claims (or official victory credits) in WWII fighter combat exceeded actual opposing losses, often by a lot, because it would cause what you consider to be an awkward situation. *That's* not a serious position.

Anyway individual scores and overall results aren't the same thing. In many cases we reasonably surely know, eg. 5 a/c were credited but only 1 or 2 really downed, but we seldom know which of the 5 credits actually represent those 2 losses. There's anyway no imperative to restate individual scores, we simply have to keep in mind the real scores were almost always lower, and more importantly we have to fairly consider who's score was amassed in air arms and situation where the claiming was more or less accurate. That's the other key concept which keeps getting ignored, 'overclaim' is not some constant which we can factor out across the board and then ignore, it varied *a lot* from air arm to air arm, unit to unit in different situations and campaigns in WWII.

5. I agree, but the bulk of the thread is about about performance stats. Or, non-accurate approaches like drawing conclusions about fighter effectiveness from the absolute level of a *claimed* ratio that was possibly mostly against fighter types acting as kamikazes.

6. I just gave speed as example. My point is we can say the faster plane is superior if equal in all other respects, *or* the better climbing plane is superior if equal in all other respects, *or* etc, but once we have planes where one is a bit faster but the other climbs a bit better or etc., there's no solid analytical framework to resolve that into which plane was better based on stats. And that's usually the case between any two planes close enough in performance to even have to debate which would be more effective in the hands of equal pilots.

Joe
 

Well lets see Claidemore, were the RAFN Seafires fighting against overwhelming numbers of enemy a/c piloted by well trained pilots ?? And did it actually fight everyone of its kills ?? Didn't think so.

Considering all the circumstances the Ta-152H's 11/0 (Or 12/0) kill/loss ratio is remarkable and was only achieved because it was clearly superior to everything else in the air. Remember all kills were from dogfights with capable enemy fighters, and the Ta-152H won every time. But the Kill/loss ratio is but the final proof, as the performance figures speak for themselves.

Basing superiority entirely on Kill/loss ratio is ignorant and useless and gets you nowhere nearer the truth. You need to take everything into account, such as the circumstances under which the said a/c had to operate, how well trained the pilots who flew it were, the performance of the a/c, pilots opinions from both sides, aerodynamics, how well trained were the opposing pilots, what a/c was it up against and how many ?? All of which was covered in our debate about the Ta-152H.
 
Just a couple of comments Soren.

Were the Seafires heavily outnumbered? Yes
Were the 152's heavily outnumbered? Yes
8 Seafires against 18 Zeros who had the bounce

Were the Seafire Pilots better trained/experienced - Yes
Were the 152 pilots better trained/experienced -Yes

Was the 152 far better than anything it was likely to meet in the air - Yes
Was the Seafire far better than the Zero - NO it was close

Were the 152's tied to escorting bombers -No
Were the Seafires tied to escorting the bombers - Yes
Escorting Avengers none of which were lost and one of which was awarded a kill.

The Claims. The pilots combat reports describe
One Zero shared between two pilots as Blazing Nicely after its undercarrige dropped
One Zero fired at from 100 yards and the pilot bailed out
One Zero shot down by one pilot but no details
One Zero shared between 2 pilots but no details
One Zero shot down after his engine was on fire and his undercarrige dropped
One Zero shot down at 100 yards with hits on the engine and cockpit that burst into flames, the plane rolling overonto its back and plummeting into cloud
One Zero claimed after its wing root caught fire (given a probable)
One Zero shot down after its tail was shot off.

I am certainly not going to claim that all these claims turned into actuals but I do believe that the Japanese reports of its losses are on the low side.

As for the Spitfire that was shot down being due to a radio problem that is mentioned in the reports. The reason for this is because the leader was shot down in the the first bounce and despite a number of radio calls from the other members of the unit there was absolutely no reaction. He flew straight and level until hit.

All the details are in Royal Navy Acces of WW2 ISBN 978 1 84603 178 6
 
Just a couple of points you missed:

1. The Ta-152 pilots fought against well trained Allied pilots
2. Most of the Zeros shot down by the Seafires were Kamikaze a/c

There's a BIG difference.
 
Glider said:
Was the 152 far better than anything it was likely to meet in the air - Yes
Was the Seafire far better than the Zero - NO it was close
Click to expand...

Well Glider that's essentially what I've been saying from the start, so where is it exactly we disagree ??
 
Soren said:
Just a couple of points you missed:

1. The Ta-152 pilots fought against well trained Allied pilots
2. Most of the Zeros shot down by the Seafires were Kamikaze a/c

There's a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

I understood that they only shot one Western aircraft down A Tempest and there is a question mark over the loss of a 152 at almost the same time. But even so the German pilots were not just ordinary squadron pilots, they were selected. In general, the difference in quality between the German Pilots and the opponents was probably similar between the Seafire Pilots and the Japanese.

All the Zero's shot down in the above combat were not Kamikaze, they were ordinary fighters. There is also evidence that it was a well planned attack involving three fighter groups, a decoy flight of 2 Zero's, the main attack force of 12 fighters who attacked from above and behind and a third flight of four fighters that made a head on attack on the bombers shortly after the start of the battle. Individually the Japanese pilots were less well trained but its likely that the leaders were as good as anyone, no beginners can co-ordinate like that.
 
Soren said:
Well Glider that's essentially what I've been saying from the start, so where is it exactly we disagree ??
Click to expand...

On the almost aggressive reply you made to the following posting

Originally Posted by claidemore
I seem to remember the kill/loss ratio of the Ta152 being touted as an indicator of its superiority (as well as it's performance and supposed handling characteristics).

Shouldn't a similar statistical record of Seafire vs Zero carry the same weight?

If we are being impartial and objective?

His comments were pretty much spot on. The pilots in those 152 would have stood an excellent chance of achieving the same results had they been in say FW190D's. They were an exceptional group of pilots.
 
Exceptional group of pilots ? Hardly Glider, some of them were very experienced, others not so much, and the pilots they were flying against were all well trained and flying capable a/c.

I understood that they only shot one Western aircraft down A Tempest and there is a question mark over the loss of a 152 at almost the same time
Click to expand...

The Ta-152 shot down more than one Western Allied fighter, read Willy Reschke's book. Furthermore it has been confirmed that a P-51 was shot down by a Ta-152H, you can ask Erich about this.

And there is no question mark over the lost Ta-152, it crashed for no apparent reason as Reschke says, diving out of formation and into the woods before reaching the target area.

The Seafire vs Zero incident can't be compared at all and so is anything from spot on.

But moving on to the Zero vs Seafire subject:

Like JoeB said:
No, there was 1 known Seafire loss to Zeroes, in the *only* combat between the two where it's known the Japanese opponents were fighters and not kamikazes, on the last morning of the war August 15 1945, claiming 7 Zeroes. The Japanese losses per their accounts were only 1 Zero lost pilot bailed out WIA and one other pilot WIA but plane apparently not destroyed (see posts above). In all other cases the Seafires were defending carriers close in and it's likely most or all the fighter types they claimed were kamikazes.

Now 1 for 1 doesn't sound very onesided to me.
 
Soren
Quote: " Basing superiority entirely on Kill/loss ratio is ignorant and useless and gets you nowhere nearer the truth. You need to take everything into account, such as the circumstances under which the said a/c had to operate, how well trained the pilots who flew it were, the performance of the a/c, pilots opinions from both sides, aerodynamics, how well trained were the opposing pilots, what a/c was it up against and how many ?? All of which was covered in our debate about the Ta-152H."

Soren, from which units were the claimed Soviet victims of Ta-152 pilots? Did their toverits saw that they were shot down by FW-190s or Ta-152s? If you don't know the answers you are comparing apples and oranges. You accept LW claims as true kills and LW losses were accepted as losses only if victim's formation members saw that the victim was shot down by an enemy plane.

Juha
 

To achieve 1 for 1 loss ratio, the Zero must have become fireproof, be able to fly without a tail and land without a pilot who bailed out.
Not likely
 

Soren - being a devil's advocate. If there was a known reason for the lost Ta 152, there would be 'no question mark", correct? If there was 'no apparent reason" wouldn't you say it raises a question?

I can think of several possibilities.

1.) Heart attack - not likely but possible death and loss of control
2.) Saw something at his six and evaded, losing control and crashing - possible and more probable than a heart attack.
3.) hit and killed by golden BB from the ground - not likely depending on location
4.) hit from behind by another fighter - possible, but hard to know. If this happened and the fighter in question was also shot down there would not have been a claim. What was the cloud cover like. Possible for boom and zoom?
5.) Sudden structural failure
6.) Loss of key control linkage like elevators
7.) Pilot tired and fell asleep.

Which one of these are you (or Willi) Certain of so that there is no "question mark".

As to Ta 152 inventory. Are all accounted for from each operational unit to which they were deployed? Are all the pilots for those ships accounted for when the war ended?

If so, where are the references? and what is the referenced disposition of each one?

If not, what is the explanation?

In short, claiming that no Ta 152's were lost in combat is interesting and serious researchers would test that claim by at least asking the above questions.

Simply stated - Willi R. is not likely to be in possession of any knowledge of the above questions unless 1.) every Ta 152 deployed was under his personal command, b.) he has the squadron/Group records, c.) there is verification from Focke Wulf/Tank that all deployed Ta 152s were in fact deployed to one squadron/Group and that the number in fact matches with that Group's records.

Does this documentation exist?

If not, how does one make a claim about Ta 152H loss/kill statistics other than - "it was a damn fine airplane"
 
And I'll reiterate, I won't absolutely state the single loss was a/c of Lt. T. Honma, 252nd AG.

But, vivid and specific descriptions of enemy a/c downed, believed to described separate enemy losses, just are not proof of actual *separate* enemy losses. That's seen again and again by anybody who has compared claims with loss records in WWII (or Korea, similar technology of combat). The kind of details you present are useful and interesting but also exist in almost all other cases, or at least did exist when the credits were awarded, even if since lost.

It seems likely Honma's and Yamada's a/c represent more than two of those claims, plausibly all 7, given furball combat with difficult initial situation and perceived numerical disadvantage, especially given no previous true fighter combat experience in those particular FAA units. Those are all common elements in cases of higher overclaims.

The 252nd AG flight reporting contact with British a/c consisted of 10 Zeroes, but there were F6F's around as well. Honma's personal account (in "Sky of August 15" by Hata) has the opponents as a mixture of 'Spitfires' and F6F's, in basically a single combat. Honma bailed out WIA plane on fire, downed by a Seafire by all accounts. Lt Cdr. M Hidaka crashlanded, cause or enemy a/c type not given. CPO N. Yoshinari was credited with a Seafire. Honma and WO K. Yoshida were both credited with TBF's (only 1 FAA Avenger was downed, no USN ones downed by fighters in the area/time).

The 302nd Air Group flight of which CPO S. Yamada was part consisted of 4 Raiden ('Jack') and 10 Zeroes. The only specific attribution to Seafires was Yamada's wounding, a/c not mentioned as destroyed; they attributed 4 a/c losses to F6F's, claiming 1 F6F.

Probably none of the Japanese fighters met near or over Japan that morning were kamikazes. The *previous* fighter type kill credits of Seafires were probably mostly or all kamikazes, in defensive ops near carriers, not those on August 15.

Also I still reiterate, high claims by one side, in general, do not constitute any proof that reported losses on the other side were 'low'. There are just too many cases involving too many air arms and units where the opposing loss reports are pretty airtight as to completeness of units involved (which again is true over Darwin, but not quite true here, I grant, though main issue here is F6F/Seafire overlapping combats, still 7 losses just to Seafires seems highly improbable), and just don't include loads of claims of the other side. Documented cases of specific records which seriously understate losses are just about non-existent, for anybody, for all the times that's suggested.

Joe
 
JoeB
thanks a lot for Your analyze on the 15 Aug 45 air combat. I always like your analytical messages and how your always try to find the truth by carefully studing info from both sides.

Juha
 

Bill,

The cause behind every other Ta-152 loss is known except that single one. And it absolutely couldn't have been caused by enemy action as both Willy and his wingman saw him just dive out of formation and into the woods, no tracers, smoke, enemy a/c or damage to Stattler's a/c was observed.

So that leaves only a few possible explanations, either he fell asleep, got a heart attack (rare yes, but when have you ever heard of this before besides this ??) or mechanical malfunction (Highly unlikely as he didnt respond).
 
Why is it that every thread I visit to review aircraft performance seems to always end up with a reference to the Ta 152H?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
731
PAT303
P
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
4K
Jabberwocky
J
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
449
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register