Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

[parsifal]

I agree , and in an earlier post also said that the political ramification of the zero were huge. It was a carrier based fighter with performance superior to its land based counterparts. The only aircraft that even came close to that was the Wildcat, and even then, the Wildcat lacked the range to be as decisive as the Zero.

Being a Carrier Fighter of superior performance was one part of the shock the zero generated. The other part was that it came from an Asian nation , long regarded as backward and inferior in its aircraft development. This really upset the apple cart for a lot of people

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree , and in an earlier post also said that the political ramification of the zero were huge. It was a carrier based fighter with performance superior to its land based counterparts. The only aircraft that even came close to that was the Wildcat, and even then, the Wildcat lacked the range to be as decisive as the Zero.

Being a Carrier Fighter of superior performance was one part of the shock the zero generated. The other part was that it came from an Asian nation , long regarded as backward and inferior in its aircraft development. This really upset the apple cart for a lot of people

I'm sure it massively emboldened the Japanese, politically. Without it, I doubt they would have had the guts to try Pearl Harbor.

 

[parsifal]

I agree, I dont think they would have attempted their offensive without the Zero....

 

[proton45]

The A6M battle score for the mainland China engagement was, out of 76 attacks (354 sorties) against enemy targets their where 99 enemy planes shot down 163 planes damaged with another 4 probable kills...this was with a loss of 2 A6Ms shot down by flak and 39 A6M's damaged. I believe this covers the period of 1940 til November of 1941.

In 1940 (Aug to end) their where 22 attacks (153 sorties) with 59 enemy planes shot down, 101 Chinese planes destroyed on ground at a loss of 0 A6M.

[edit] these are Japanese figures...but the reality remains that from early 1941 the Japanese had complete air superiority in the mainland Chinese theater. Even if you half the number of planes shot down that's still 50 Chinese planes shot down at a loss of 2...

 

[renrich]

Don't overlook in this discussion the superior training and capabilities of the IJN pilots in the A6Ms over the Japanese Army pilots in other models of aircraft. I believe it is a fact that the AVG, which only was in combat from late December, 1941 to July, 1942, never faced A6Ms.

 

[drgondog]

I just looked up some detail award lists for Tex Hill, Neale, Older, etc. There were were awards for both Type '0' and Zeros for the aces listed in Olynyk's Stars and Bars in the March 42 timeframe until the the AVG became the 23rd FG in July 1942. I.e. - Tex was awarded 3, Older 2.5, RT Smith had 3 Type '0' plus two Probables and 2 Damaged.. Having said that the Type 97 was by far the dominant fighter type.

There is no entry for A6M but I am not aware that USN/USMC/USAAF/AVG made a distinction until Zeke appeared in terminology.

 

[proton45]

I just looked up some detail award lists for Tex Hill, Neale, Older, etc. There were were awards for both Type '0' and Zeros for the aces listed in Olynyk's Stars and Bars in the March 42 timeframe until the the AVG became the 23rd FG in July 1942. I.e. - Tex was awarded 3, Older 2.5, RT Smith had 3 Type '0' plus two Probables and 2 Damaged.. Having said that the Type 97 was by far the dominant fighter type.

There is no entry for A6M but I am not aware that USN/USMC/USAAF/AVG made a distinction until Zeke appeared in terminology.

All but 30 A6M's where withdrawn from combat in the middle of '41' in preparation for the Pearl Harbor attack...its possible that the AVG had limited contact with the Zero. The majority of the A6M's where resigned to the carrier fleet through the Java campaign...

 

[drgondog]

All but 30 A6M's where withdrawn from combat in the middle of '41' in preparation for the Pearl Harbor attack...its possible that the AVG had limited contact with the Zero. The majority of the A6M's where resigned to the carrier fleet through the Java campaign...

I got that Proton and note that awards are based on observation from some distance away rather than close inspection of ID plates - so an award of a Type '0' and 'Zero' is not a confirmation of A6M but leads to question of what that meant.

At any rate they showed up in AVG records in March 1942.

 

[JoeB]

The 'Zero' awards to the AVG were Army Type 1 Fighters, later known to the Allies as 'Oscar', (development designation Ki-43 but that was used by neither Japanese fighter units nor the Allies at the time), mainly of the 64th Sentai based in northern Thailand. I counted from the information in Ford's "Flying Tigers" 11 Type 1's shot down by the AVG (many more credited of course) for only 3 losses, huge outlier compared to the Type 1's record v other Allied units in that theater at the time, which for example v Hurricanes was 20 to 4 in the other direction. The AVG shot down around 35 Type 97's at a similar ratio of around 3, other Allied units at the time didn't even achieve parity v the Type 97, and also shot down 3 Type 2 2-seat Fighters ('Nick') for one loss, among fighter types. The AVG almost certainly never met Zeroes, nor did 10th AF fighter units in Burma thereafter and 14th AF fighter units in China only met them a few times from 1944.

The Zero's operations in China 1940-41 were a basically separate chapter from Pacific War (AVG project aimed to help China before the US entered the war but didn't actually enter combat till after Pearl Harbor). That earlier chapter featured total supremacy by Zeroes over Chinese fighters, beyond what Zeroes achieved in the Pacific War, compared to what was sometimes a real contest for the Type 96 against Chinese fighters.

Joe

 

[drgondog]

The 'Zero' awards to the AVG were Army Type 1 Fighters, later known to the Allies as 'Oscar', (development designation Ki-43 but that was used by neither Japanese fighter units nor the Allies at the time), mainly of the 64th Sentai based in northern Thailand. I counted from the information in Ford's "Flying Tigers" 11 Type 1's shot down by the AVG (many more credited of course) for only 3 losses, huge outlier compared to the Type 1's record v other Allied units in that theater at the time, which for example v Hurricanes was 20 to 4 in the other direction. The AVG shot down around 35 Type 97's at a similar ratio of around 3, other Allied units at the time didn't even achieve parity v the Type 97, and also shot down 3 Type 2 2-seat Fighters ('Nick') for one loss, among fighter types. The AVG almost certainly never met Zeroes, nor did 10th AF fighter units in Burma thereafter and 14th AF fighter units in China only met them a few times from 1944.

The Zero's operations in China 1940-41 were a basically separate chapter from Pacific War (AVG project aimed to help China before the US entered the war but didn't actually enter combat till after Pearl Harbor). That earlier chapter featured total supremacy by Zeroes over Chinese fighters, beyond what Zeroes achieved in the Pacific War, compared to what was sometimes a real contest for the Type 96 against Chinese fighters.

Joe

Joe - why were the awards described as Type O or Zero if they were type 1's?

 

[parsifal]

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification

 

[proton45]

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification

Ya, I think your right...

The hype was really on the A6M and most likely an over excited AVG pilot just misidentified a Type 1 as an A6M (you can almost hear him screaming, "I got a zero, I got a zero!!!"). I have even seen early US military briefs that claim the A6M was in use with the IJA the IJN...

 

[jugggo]

Would have to go with the Corsair. Since it did have a 11-1 kill ratio and not to mention to be used as a multi-platform ie fighter/bomber. With that being said it did increase drasticlly the bomb tonnage used in the Pacific.

 

[thewritingwriter89]

I would have to say any of the early 109s V series through D. They were revolutionary, and even ahead of their contemporaries (with exception to the spitfire). It was the benchmark for a critical phase in fighter design, and it has to get credit.

TWW89

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks.
Too bad it's not in the poll.

 

[thewritingwriter89]

Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks.
Too bad it's not in the poll.

You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.

 

[proton45]

You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.

I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?

 

[Glider]

An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.

 

[Colin1]

An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.

Doesn't really answer your question
but it's an interesting read, doesn't sound like the Poles really cared. I was aware of Polish excellence in aviation, their fighter school at Deblin was arguably the finest in the world at the time, but I also thought the Poles were largely caught on the ground

Deadly Eagles: The Polish Air Force in 1939 : Great History

 

[thewritingwriter89]

I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?

Your facts are sound proton. Looked em up today. Mainly, I was just saying the late 1930s shift in design theory was due in large part to the 109, and the threat/design potential it offered. Basically, other countries saw the 109, and thought "what we have in development, speed it up, or get it on the drawing board." This is, of course, a over-simplified generalization, but you get my drift.