What plane (if any) could have made a difference for Germany in the Battle of Britain

[zoomar]

I'm curious why no one seems to suggest the Fw-187 as a possible difference-maker. With a prototype in 1937, it would seem that development of this plane would have given Germany in 1940 a single-seat twin engined fighter in the mold of the P-38 that might have been well suited for the progressive addition of upgraded weapons and armament. Like all twin-engined fighters it migtt not have been truly the equal of its best single-seat opponents, but it would have been a damn sight better in fighter vs fighter combat than the Bf-110 was in the close escort role, letting the Bf-109s zoom in and out in fast fighter sweeps.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the BoB really was a different type of "strategic" air campaign than the US/UK offensive against Germany. It was the first phase of a potential invasion and its purpose was very limited - cause sufficient attrition in the RAF that Germany could maintain air superiority over the channel and southern england during the key early months-weeks of Operation Sealion. Attacking industries and cities would only be bait to make the RAF engage, with most attacks going against airfields and radar stations. The Luftwaffe began the BoB with that tactic in mind and might have echeived its aim with the planes it had had the focus not switched to more "strategic" city bombing/night attacks - for which its fast twin engined bombers bombers were poorly suited. This begs the issue whether or not the whole idea of Germany successfully crossing the English channel is remotely possible, but a successful BoB could have set up a situation in which air superiority over the channel and southern engliand was legitimately at issue until 1942-43 - with possible effects on the allies own strategic offensive and schedule for Operation Overlord.

 

[Gixxerman]

I have read that using the Me110 as a pin-point strike aircraft (in it's C-4 varient) en mass along with the Ju88 might have been far more useful than much of the rest of the bombing they undertook.
I suspect that the Me110 might also have been better employed on low level free sweeps (much as the Mustangs of the 8th AF would do later over Germany)

The Fw187's performance was outstanding, undoubtedly, but I guess once the decision had been taken to go with Me110 there was little point in diluting the effort.

 

[Nikademus]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the BoB really was a different type of "strategic" air campaign than the US/UK offensive against Germany. It was the first phase of a potential invasion and its purpose was very limited - cause sufficient attrition in the RAF that Germany could maintain air superiority over the channel and southern england during the key early months-weeks of Operation Sealion. Attacking industries and cities would only be bait to make the RAF engage, with most attacks going against airfields and radar stations. The Luftwaffe began the BoB with that tactic in mind and might have echeived its aim with the planes it had had the focus not switched to more "strategic" city bombing/night attacks - for which its fast twin engined bombers bombers were poorly suited. .

I'd say the biggest difference was the total Intel breakdown on the German side. Had they had such a comprehensive (or at least competent) intel picture, they might have pulled it off.

 

[Glider]

I have Saburo's book but have not reviewed it in a while. If memory serves he was referring to a late war incident where a bunch of Hellcats were chasing him and getting in each other's way. I may be wrong. The P40 was supposed to be a very rugged AC. My guess is that it was more robust than the Spitfire.

It is interesting to me that it appears that, on this forum, there is a distinct Eurocentric POV which somewhat dismisses the war in the Pacific as kind of the second string. After reading Shores' books and others, I have a different viewpoint. The fact is that the premier fighters in the early going in Europe could never really match the Zero, because they could not get there. If you can't be in the fight, you can't win. Britain never was able to develop a single engine fighter that had an extended range which could compete. Neither could Germany. The US did. Most of their fighters, P51s, Hellcats, Corsairs and even late P47s could fight successfully many miles further from base than Britain's and Germany's. Some of Japan's also and they had much more limited resources than the other combatants. The Ki84, which first flew in 1943 and which reportedly could compete with the best of the American fighters had a max range of 1815 miles. To me, it is good to recognise that.

Facts don't lie. The best of the European fighters, in spite of some gaudy performance figures, could not even get into the fight in the Pacific. Those wonderful LW fighter pilots which we all have heard so much about never landed on a carrier and never had to do much navigating over miles of the trackless Pacific. The IJN, USN and FAA pilots knew those skills and could be successful in ACM. It is true that the kill claims of a lot of the AAF and especially USN and UCMC pilots were inflated by kills on kamikaze pilots or raw JAAF pilots but the early war Japanese pilots and their mounts were as good as most and much better than generally accepted by those whose focus is the war in Europe.

There are some good comments here but they are based on the fighting in the far east. As mentioned before the Zero didn't effectively exist in July 1940. However for the sake of argument we would like to continue with this fallacy, if the Zero did fly during the BOB it would be up against a very different situation. The radar warning, support, numbers and intensity of the fighting is very different.

The Spit 1 would be a very dangerous opponent. Once the 20mm ammo has gone the Zero is almost weaponless. its a fact you cannot ignore. I have no doubt that in the early combats the Spitfires would try and fail to dogfight it with the Zero and pay the price. The secret unknown is how long would it take the RAF to work out the achilles heal of the Zero. In brief this is STAY ABOVE 250MPH AND DON'T DOGFIGHT. Once this lesson is learnt then the Zero is in serious trouble, as I said earlier the question is how long would it take. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

It has been stated correctly many times that the weak spot of the Hurricane and Spitfire are the Rads even for an LMG, but over the UK does this matter as much?

The fighting in Burma and the Far East was seen as a second string affair. The RAF were using Hurricanes, Blenhiems and Wellingtons well into the conflict. They had a lousy supply chain and lacked in integrated air warning system, these were present in the BOB and made a huge difference. If I can use the example from todays This Day in the BOB Thread

At 0945 hours a formation of Bf 109s flying off the Isle of Wight were bounced by Hurricanes of RAF No. 601 Squadron and although several Messerschmitts were damaged, they managed to destroy one of the British fighters, a Hurricane flown by P/O P.Challoner-Lindsey, the only casualty for the RAF. Another flown by F/O J.H. Riddle was damaged by gunfire but managed to return to base. RAF No. 601 Squadron managed to shoot down two German bombers.
If the 109's had been Zeros how many of the several damaged 109's would have been destroyed Zero's? We don't know but we do know that the 109E was a far more robust aircraft with armour and self sealing fuel tanks. My money would have been on some of those would have been lost, why, because the Hurricanes had the warning and the bounce.

The fact is that the premier fighters in the early going in Europe could never really match the Zero, because they could not get there. If you can't be in the fight, you can't win. Britain never was able to develop a single engine fighter that had an extended range which could compete.

This is a range question but the obvious reply is that in the BOB the RAF didn't need a long range, as the enemy came to them. Pretty straight forward.
PS the RAF didn't develop a long range fighter not because they couldn't but because they didn't try. It has been mentioned before that two Spit IX's were fittted with 2 x 60 gallon drop tanks and flew the Atlantic. Presumably they used the Newfoundland Iceland route but they did do it and it isn't something that you would try in a twice around the airfield machine.

 

[renrich]

The British in the CBI long after the BOB learned better tactics which could be used mainly against the Ki43 which was not as well armed and did not have quite the performance of the A6M and they certainly did not overwhelm the JAAF. To say they would have adopted new tactics quickly in the BOB against A6Ms is questionable and to say the new tactics, (don't get under 250 MPH) would work, is simplistic and did not prove to work well in the CBI. Once again, both the IJN and JAAF did not necessarily and predominately try to get in a turning horizontal fight. That is a myth.

 

[zoomar]

As mentioned by many, the strategic and tactical situation in the PTO and ETO were fundamentally different, especially before 1944. It is really comparing apples and oranges. I also had never really considered the possibility (claimed by several posters) that the quality of British aircrew in the PTO was substantially different from that in the ETO. All this is why it is so fascinating to speculate how the A6M might have performed in the BoB or in the Med/North Africa in Luftwaffe service - recognizing that this would be virtually impossible given the relative unavailability of the type in mid-1940.

I tend to believe the A6M would not be anything like a dominating machine against RAF Spitfires and Hurricaines in the BoB, but as a long-range escort fighter to supplement the Bf-109 it would almost certainly be superior to the Bf-110 - which could then be deployed itself as a long range fast light bomber.

The range and performance of many Japanese types would also be helpful in the Med and North Africa, where the allies tended not to deploy their most modern planes. To what extent could long range escorts have helped the campaign against Malta?

The problem with all such speculations is that Japan could barely provide eneough planes for her own use. It's is also hard to imagine that the German Aircraft industry would easily (or willingly) give up its own teutonically complex manufacturing standards to make simple copies of Japanese designs. The RLM would want stronger construction, more armor, bigger engines, etc., all of which would probably reduce most of the handling and range advantages the Japanese planes possessed.

 

[Glider]

The British in the CBI long after the BOB learned better tactics which could be used mainly against the Ki43 which was not as well armed and did not have quite the performance of the A6M and they certainly did not overwhelm the JAAF. To say they would have adopted new tactics quickly in the BOB against A6Ms is questionable and to say the new tactics, (don't get under 250 MPH) would work, is simplistic and did not prove to work well in the CBI. Once again, both the IJN and JAAF did not necessarily and predominately try to get in a turning horizontal fight. That is a myth.

I certainly didn't say that the RAF would learn the lessons quickly. The words were:-
The secret unknown is how long would it take the RAF to work out the achilles heal of the Zero. In brief this is STAY ABOVE 250MPH AND DON'T DOGFIGHT. Once this lesson is learnt then the Zero is in serious trouble, as I said earlier the question is how long would it take. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

As for the tactics being simplistic, they are and they are effective. For instance how many times were Typhoon Pilots told not to dogfight with a 109 but to keep their energy levels up.
I admit that I thought that the Spitfires did quite well against the JAAF and that the JAAF were seriously concerned about the Spits.

But you are still talking about the CBI, we are talking about the Japanese planes in the ETO. Big difference.

 

[Markus]

Let´s start with the traditional Zero-rant:

The thing was horrible! Weak engine, flimsy airframe, not good at high speeds, even worse in a dive. It was the ideal plane for fighting inexperienced pilots using the wrong tactics and flying obsolete aircraft but once the other side was made up of pros and decent a/c, the Zero´s luck ran out faster than an Aircobra´s fuel.

As far as the German a/c are concerned they were generally ok. Give the Me109 a drop tank and much of the range problems are solved, 12,7mm machine guns for the bombers also won´t require the use of handwavium, the only true design flaw was the lack of guns in the tail a´la B-25.

While this would make a difference it would not be decisive. The RAF´s air defence system was well developed, their pilots could fight again if they were shot down, they outproduced the germans by a big margin and even if the Germans have Messerschmitts with drop tanks, the RAF still has the ability to fall back to areas the LW can´t reach.

With regard to plane´s ruggedness. It IMO depends on what guns the enemy is using. RCMG are almost useless against twin-engine a/c even if we are talking about 8 to 12 of them. The Japanese fighters had just two and 20mm cannons that were handicapped by a much lower muzzle velocity than their German counterparts. A Zero with four 12.7x81mm machine guns would have made F4F and P-40 look a lot less rugged.

 

[Glider]

It IMO depends on what guns the enemy is using. RCMG are almost useless against twin-engine a/c even if we are talking about 8 to 12 of them. The Japanese fighters had just two and 20mm cannons that were handicapped by a much lower muzzle velocity than their German counterparts. A Zero with four 12.7x81mm machine guns would have made F4F and P-40 look a lot less rugged.

I have to agree with this. Recently I was reading a book on the Ki44 and there was an observation that the JAAF considered the initial version with 4 x HMG to be sufficient for everything up to Heavy Bombers.

 

[renrich]

The only way to practically compare how an A6M might have done against Spitfires and Hurricanes, (if by magic the A6M could have been in the BOB and bearing in mind that the Hurricane was much more numerous than the Spit in that battle) is to see how those British AC did against a fighter somewhat similar to the A6M, (the Ki43 and secondarily the Ki27) in another theatre of the war,( since the British AC mentioned did not have much experience against the A6M.)

It is erroneous to think that the Bf109 with a drop tank could have as much range as the A6M, especially as the A6M used drop tanks also. The A6M could have stuck around with the bombers a lot longer than the Bf109 and it could have interfered with the Hurris and Spits trying to shoot down the bombers probably just as well as the 109, certainly much better than a 109 which had to flee for France when the fuel low light came on. A fighter which is not there can't be effective.

The evidence from the Pacific war suggests strongly that the Hurricane,( the most numerous fighter for the Brits in the BOB) was not very effective against the JAAF fighters which were probably not as competent as the A6M. Some of those Hurris which did not compete well against the JAAF had the four 20 mms so armament was not the key factor. Some of the Spits in the CBI had the MGs removed and went with only the cannon to increase maneuverability and climb. Apparently, they were having difficulty competing also.

Oh well, it is only speculation and it is hard for some to deal with the reality that shooting down Japanese fighters in the CBI, and keeping from getting shot down, may have been just as difficult as performing the same tasks in the ETO.

 

[claidemore]

Did the Hurricane do poorly against the Ki43? Or did the Hurricane do poorly in that particular tactical situation?
There is a HUGE difference between Burma (for example) and Britain. Britain had a very effective detection system, Burma had a very ineffective one. ( Not to mention the fact that the scale of the air fighting in the two theatres is significantly different.)

It doesn't matter if the Zero or any other fantasy plane has enough endurance to stay over Britain all day long, it's ammo is limited and it will be detected and intercepted. They simply cannot stooge about in unfriendly skies and maintain a tactical advantage.
If the Zero is escorting bombers, then the RAF fighters that engage the Zeros will provide the same opportunity for other RAF fighters to attack the bombers as they did when the 109 was escorting.

I happen to agree that the Hurricane was a very poor match against the Zero or Ki43, it had parity in some performance areas, but no significant advantages. The Spitfire on the other hand had a very good speed advantage. Had the Zero been the primary Luftwaffe fighter instead of the 109, and given the same sort of occurances as happened with the 109 , ie a captured Zero from France for RAE to test, tactics would have been developed to combat it. In the 109 vs Spitfire tests RAE relayed to RAF pilots that the Spitfire was more manueverable. Though this statement is hotly contested today, that information was accepted by Spit pilots and they prevailed. With hypothetical tests of the Zero vs Spitfire, RAE would have found the speed difference, the lack of armor and s/s/tanks etc and made the appropriate recomendations.

 

[Markus]

One user said the Hurris in the CBI were using lower octane fuel than the ones in Europe and the Med for quite some time. This reduced the Mk.II´s performance to the levels of the Mk.I.

 

[Nikademus]

Did the Hurricane do poorly against the Ki43? Or did the Hurricane do poorly in that particular tactical situation?
There is a HUGE difference between Burma (for example) and Britain. Britain had a very effective detection system, Burma had a very ineffective one. ( Not to mention the fact that the scale of the air fighting in the two theatres is significantly different.)

It doesn't matter if the Zero or any other fantasy plane has enough endurance to stay over Britain all day long, it's ammo is limited and it will be detected and intercepted. They simply cannot stooge about in unfriendly skies and maintain a tactical advantage.
If the Zero is escorting bombers, then the RAF fighters that engage the Zeros will provide the same opportunity for other RAF fighters to attack the bombers as they did when the 109 was escorting.

I happen to agree that the Hurricane was a very poor match against the Zero or Ki43, it had parity in some performance areas, but no significant advantages. The Spitfire on the other hand had a very good speed advantage. Had the Zero been the primary Luftwaffe fighter instead of the 109, and given the same sort of occurances as happened with the 109 , ie a captured Zero from France for RAE to test, tactics would have been developed to combat it. In the 109 vs Spitfire tests RAE relayed to RAF pilots that the Spitfire was more manueverable. Though this statement is hotly contested today, that information was accepted by Spit pilots and they prevailed. With hypothetical tests of the Zero vs Spitfire, RAE would have found the speed difference, the lack of armor and s/s/tanks etc and made the appropriate recomendations.

The Hurricane's track record kill ratio wise varied by Theater. It performed sterling work during the BoB....did less well during the Battle of France (at least after the Sitzkrieg period ), won in Greece, did well in East Africa but got kicked it's hardest over Malta. In the Desert, it began competetively but quickly fell behind as time went by. Burma/SRA - got kicked pretty hard. (I'll forgo the usual exact statistical figures unless asked )

I do not agree at all with the assertion that the Zero was a piece of junk that could only win against unprepared or poorly experienced opponents. The USN pilots certainly didn't think so and gave the plane (and the initial group of men who flew them) "a lot of g'dam respect" per Jack Fletcher's famous quote after Aug 8. The plane scored a very impressive 4.5:1 ratio against enemy fighters (of three different airforces including the USAAFFE) during the SRA fighting. (contrast to the at least 5:1 achieved by the Jagdwaffe during Barbarossa's opening months)

In both cases, of course the state of the defending force(s) contributed to the skewed ratio....but that does not IMO take away from the attributes of either plane or pilot....Jagdwaffe or IJNAF...Zero or Messer. What i would expect to occur in a hypothetical matchup against an airforce that is better organized and has good ground control would be a much closer ratio of exchange revolving around 1:1 which is what some accounts of the BoB show as happening despite the advantages enjoyed by the Luftwaffe during 1940.

1:1, 1.8:1, 1:1.8 etc etc. Its irrelevent in the big picture to an airforce if that side achieves it's objectives. An airforce that has a good plane with the range to escort it's bombers to and from the target would present a great challenge to Fighter Command. You need the other elements discussed in every BoB out there, but its a start.

 

[Marcel]

Did the Hurricane do poorly against the Ki43? Or did the Hurricane do poorly in that particular tactical situation?
There is a HUGE difference between Burma (for example) and Britain. Britain had a very effective detection system, Burma had a very ineffective one. ( Not to mention the fact that the scale of the air fighting in the two theatres is significantly different.)

This is something that when judging the poor performance of the Allied a/c in the Pacific in the early years. Early warning did not exist while the fighting area was much bigger. In the BoB, the British only had to expect the Germans in the south-east, while having a fair early warning. This was not the case in the far east. A great advantage for the attacker who will dictate where and when the fighting will take place.

 

[timshatz]

I haven't seen a lot of comment about the bombers that were used. It seems the Luftwaffe could've used a decent 4 engined bomber, especially given the armament of the average RAF fighter.

Something like the B24 or Lancaster would've meant a lot more bombs on each mission. More destruction.

It might've made the difference.

 

[renrich]

In the section of Shore's books about the IJN raid on Ceylon, the British stated that the only fighter that they had among the Fulmars, Hurricanes and Martlets that somewhat had parity with the A6M was the Martlet and it did not get into any action.

 

[zoomar]

I haven't seen a lot of comment about the bombers that were used. It seems the Luftwaffe could've used a decent 4 engined bomber, especially given the armament of the average RAF fighter.

Something like the B24 or Lancaster would've meant a lot more bombs on each mission. More destruction.

It might've made the difference.

I don't disagree at all, but here are some things to consider:

The BoB was decided by the fall of 1940. Neither the B-24 nor the Lancaster was in squadron service in 1940. Infact, very few moden 4-engined bombers were in squadron service anywhere in the world. Not the Halifax, and I'm not even sure the Stirling was. Bomber Command was limited to Wellingtons, Whitleys, Blenheims, and Hamptons - all twin engine planes no better than what the Germans had. The B-17 models available were not the well-protected versions available later in the war, and even the US had only a relative handful. The two "Ural Bombers" the Germans cancelled in the 1930's (Ju-89 or Do-19) would have been virtually obsolete in 1940. They also probably would have been produced in pitifully small numbers, meaning that He-111s and the like would still bear the brunt of the offensive. So it takes more than one might imagine to give the Luftwaffe a 4-engined bomber for the BoB. Perhaps rather than more engines, German bombers might have benefitted by more defensive guns...in power turrets...in the tail.

 

[Glider]

I do not agree at all with the assertion that the Zero was a piece of junk that could only win against unprepared or poorly experienced opponents.

I don't think anyone as said that is was a piece of junk that was only any good against poor opposition

 

[Nikademus]

So post 48 was said in jest?

 

[zoomar]

... The A6M could have stuck around with the bombers a lot longer than the Bf109 and it could have interfered with the Hurris and Spits trying to shoot down the bombers probably just as well as the 109, certainly much better than a 109 which had to flee for France when the fuel low light came on. A fighter which is not there can't be effective..

Irrespective of arguments and counterarguments about the relative merits of the Zero in the ETO, this is the critical point. To acheive its objective, an escort fighter does not need to be better than the defenders. It just has to be there and be good enough to be a credible threat to the interceptors so that they have to worry about avoiding it, rather than shooting down bombers. Every time a Hurri or Spit had to dive away to escape a Zero, a He-111 might make it to the target. The Bf-110 was not such a threat, and no single engined German fighter had the endurance to be a escort fighter. The A6M would have been this, even if it only acheived a 1:1 kill ratio against the RAF fighters. The Fw-187 might have also.