Three reasons why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO than the Spitfire

[bobbysocks]

so they were "zeros" but not "the zero"...??

 

[FLYBOYJ]

so they were "zeros" but not "the zero"...??

Yup!

 

[Wawny]

Which Zero was Caldwell speaking of? Regarding the A6M5:

"These differing technical characteristics determined the pattern of relative performance between the two machines, as shown by the tactical trials conducted by two experienced RAAF fighter pilots in flying trials conducted over three flying days[2]. Flight Lieutenant 'Bardie' Wawn DFC and Squadron Leader Les Jackson DFC flew against one another in both aircraft, and what they found was not encouraging.

They found that the Zero had a lower rated altitude than the Spitfire, 16 000 feet against 21 000 feet, which delivered the Spitfire a good speed advantage at height – it was 20 knots faster at 26 000 feet. However, as had already been noted by RAF Fighter Command in Europe, the Spitfire had relatively slow acceleration, and thus the Zero was able to stay behind the Spitfire within gun range while the Spitfire gradually accelerated away out of range. Even in a dive the Spitfire still accelerated too slowly to avoid the Zero's gunfire. Climbing away was also not an option, as the Spitfire's climb superiority was too slight (not to mention the slow acceleration problem once again)."

"The Zero developed its maximum speed of 291 knots at its rated altitude of 16 000 feet. The Spitfire produced 290 knots at 15 000 feet, confirming that below 20 000 feet the two types were more evenly matched in speed performance. Given the Zero's much superior acceleration, in practice this meant that the advantage tipped more heavily in favour of the Zero at these lower altitudes. In comparative tests at 17 000 feet, the Spitfire was again unable to safely draw away from the Zero. The unanimous conclusion of Wawn and Jackson was that 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet'."

Full Text here:
Spitfire vs Zero | Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia - Spitfire fighter pilots height tactical advantage superior

My father! Died 1990. Interesting to note on one the 'Most Secret; doc that they found he bent the tail of the Spitfire 9 Degrees during manoeuvres

 

[grampi]

I don't know why so many people think the Zero was the ultimate dog fighter. Basically, it was deadly if opposing pilots chose to get into a turning match with the Zero at slow speeds, but that's about the only area where it reined supreme. It was slower than most of the fighters of the day, was lightly armored, and it couldn't take any punishment at all....if opposing pilots chose their tactic, the Zero wasn't much of a match for any fighter...

 

[stona]

"The unanimous conclusion of Wawn and Jackson was that 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet'."

Correct. But reading the second part of the report shows that by fighting to the relative strengths of the Spitfire, rather than those in the tests from which that conclusion was drawn, fighting to the Zero's strengths, a rather different conclusion can be drawn. It's why such trials were undertaken, to develop tactics to counter the enemy.

To introduce a little balance, If I was a Spitfire pilot I would try to achieve a height advantage of at least 4,000 ft before interception, fight above 20,000 ft and never pursue a fight at less than 250 mph. If an altitude advantage was not possible, then keep flying fast.Under such conditions it is the Spitfire that holds a distinct advantage.

I don't understand why people always try to make such complicated issues into simple black and white ones. It is simplistic and not really terribly helpful, usually used to reinforce a prejudice. The best pilots and air forces fight, or at least try to fight, to the strengths of their aircraft while exploiting the relative weakness of the enemy's.
A Spitfire pilot who engaged in a low speed turning fight at 15,000 ft with a Zero would be a fool, and probably very quickly a dead one too.

The critical factor in most air combat, given competitive aircraft, wasn't and still isn't the aircraft; it's the human(s) at the controls.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Balljoint]

"The unanimous conclusion of Wawn and Jackson was that 'the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet'."

Correct. But reading the second part of the report shows that by fighting to the relative strengths of the Spitfire, rather than those in the tests from which that conclusion was drawn, fighting to the Zero's strengths, a rather different conclusion can be drawn. It's why such trials were undertaken, to develop tactics to counter the enemy.

To introduce a little balance, If I was a Spitfire pilot I would try to achieve a height advantage of at least 4,000 ft before interception, fight above 20,000 ft and never pursue a fight at less than 250 mph. If an altitude advantage was not possible, then keep flying fast.Under such conditions it is the Spitfire that holds a distinct advantage.

I don't understand why people always try to make such complicated issues into simple black and white ones. It is simplistic and not really terribly helpful, usually used to reinforce a prejudice. The best pilots and air forces fight, or at least try to fight, to the strengths of their aircraft while exploiting the relative weakness of the enemy's.
A Spitfire pilot who engaged in a low speed turning fight at 15,000 ft with a Zero would be a fool, and probably very quickly a dead one too.

The critical factor in most air combat, given competitive aircraft, wasn't and still isn't the aircraft; it's the human(s) at the controls.

Cheers

Steve

Agree. But initially the Spit did try to play the Zero's game with poor results. When the lesson was learned the Spit pretty much handled the Zero.

 

[stona]

They got it badly wrong at the beginning. Cooper touches on this in his book. The 'British' RAF squadron sent out (No.54) had to have its 'colonial' members replaced with Britons before transferring, and the two Aussie squadrons were no less typical of Fighter Command in 1942.

"All three squadrons were quite unremarkable - thoroughly average examples of RAF Fighter Command in 1942, with hastily promoted leaders, unready wartime-trained pilots, and limited operational experience all around. Contrary to the media releases at the time, they were in no sense 'crack squadrons'. Moreover they came unwillingly, loath to give up their comfortable bases in England and their high profile role in the cross-Channel war against Hitler's 'Fortress-Europe'. No.452 Squadron's former Australian CO, Squadron Leader Bob Bungey, flew into Redhill airfield to commiserate with the pilots upon hearing of their impending 'Ovidian exile'. This was an ironic reference, given that it was 54 Squadron being exiled to the antipodes, rather than the two Australian squadrons."

No. 54 Squadron had only three pilots considered combat experienced. 45% had no combat experience at all. Their CO, Squadron Leader Eric Gibbs, was the only prewar regular in the entire Spitfire wing of three squadrons, and even he had limited fighter experience, having recently transferred from Coastal Command.

No. 452 was theoretically the most experienced, but of the 29 pilots on strength in 1942, when it was withdrawn from combat operations, most of the experienced pilots transferred out. Only 11 stayed with the unit when it went to Australia, and 9 of these were new arrivals with little or no combat experience.

No. 457 Squadron had effectively been operating as an OTU, training Ausralian and Canadian pilots for those nations' more senior squadrons in Fighter Command. It had carried out operations in France but with poor results.

Early operations were a steep learning curve for these units, and the results show this.

I could make some comments about Wing Commander Caldwell, a man new to the Spitfire, new to wing tactics and new to defensive fighter operations, however competent he may otherwise have been, but I won't. Some of our Australian friends might make the trip up here from time to time and might find out where I live. Caldwell is one sacred cow I shall leave well alone (at least until 1945 )

Cheers

Steve