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

bobbysocks said:

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

Click to expand...

CobberKane said:

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

Click to expand...

stona said:

"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

Click to expand...