Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

[JoeB]

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

I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case. The AVG's retractable undercarriage fighter opponents were apparently all Type 1's of the 64th Sentai JAAF. The 64th had a couple of engagements with the AVG in late December 1941 in large escorted raids against (allied held) Rangoon, mainly escorted by Type 97's; then the 64th began meeting the AVG more regularly from late March 1942 when it was based at Chang Mai Thailand, engaging AVG squadrons based in both Burma and south China, and AVG raiding Chang Mai several times. The 64th was the only Type 1 unit in the theater at the time, and no IJN fighter units were present.

But the Type 1 was not even known to be a separate type at that time; the Army Type 97 and Navy 0 were known, the Type 1's exsitence separate from the Zero was only gradually figured out, after the AVG period it seems. Also in the mythology of the AVG, Type 97's opponents, which everyone knew at the time were not Zeroes, have been referred to as Zeroes too.

Counting in Ford's "Flying Tigers", which uses Senshi Sosho Vol 34 as its main Japanese source, the AVG shot down, just among fighters, about 35 Type 97's, 11 Type 1's, 3 Type 2 two-seat ('Nick'); they also met preproduction Type 2's (Tojo) being used for combat trials, but apparently didn't down any. They lost around 15 P-40's in air combat to fighters, a record far better than any other Allied fighter unit v Japanese in 1942 which saw significant action. But, besides their own strengths in flying experience (lots of high hour peacetime US military pilots, mainly w/o combat experience but still pretty different than typical green mass produced '41-42 British/CW pilots, or those of the rapidly expanded USAAC/F in '41-42) and tactics, the AVG also mainly learned the ropes v Type 97's then mainly met the Type 1's later on.

The 64th Sentai was usually bested in its Type 1's v the AVG, but had on average much the better of it v Hurricane units all the way thru 1943. USAAF P-51A's in Burma attempting long range escort against (Japanese held) Rangoon in late 1943 lost more a/c to Japanese fighters than they downed. And, P-40 units in Burma and China, including AVG's successor 23rd FG, typically came out more like even v Japanese fighters in 42-43, with more advantage as time went on but not the same degree as the AVG. The 64th was again the opponent in many cases. The story of initially successful Japanese fighters which quickly turned to pumpkins fits the facts particularly poorly when it comes to the AVG and the 64th Sentai.

Joe

 

[proton45]

I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case.

Joe

I tend to qualify my historical comments with uncertainties...mostly because, even though I feel confident of my research materials...I'm not always confident in my memory.


p.s. Thanks for the well written information...your posts are always a joy to read.

 

[buffnut453]

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

Hi Parsifal,

You're right. To the Allies in 1941-1943, any Japanese fighter with retractable undercarriage was a Zero (or Type 0). The subtle distinction of IJAAF and IJN functions, role and equipment were not necessarily fully understood. The Type 1 (Ki-43) was not called out as a distinct design until well into 1943...IIRC.

KR
Mark

 

[buffnut453]

Dumb question...why are we focussing on WWII aircraft? Surely the Fokker Eindecker merits an honourable mention? And how about the MiG-15 over Korea. Just a few tangential thoughts....I'll shut up now!!

 

[Civettone]

Tomo, good call on the I-16 !!


Kris

 

[JoeB]

Dumb question...why are we focussing on WWII aircraft? Surely the Fokker Eindecker merits an honourable mention? And how about the MiG-15 over Korea. Just a few tangential thoughts....I'll shut up now!!

If not limited to some connection to WWII, then F-15/16 could be mentioned too, Bekaa Valley and later long 'introduction' over many years.

Among other non-WWII fighters it's true the start of combat operations by Soviet AF MiG-15 units in Nov 1950 caused a stir in Korea (and would have been more of a political stir if it had been publicized that they were Soviet AF units!), and was 'replacing' several months of near total inactivity by the NK air component, nothing v MiG-15 was a pretty big change. But there was no actual and sustained period of superiority. The real kill ratio of MiG-15 v F-80/84 in early months of MiG-15 action in Korea was somewhat in the latter a/c's favor, and F-86's were first introduced within less than two months of MiG-15 appearance (Dec 1950 v November for MiG, though F-86's unable to reach the Yalu because of loss of their bases from ground action from Jan-Mar 1951, and straightwings had to bear the load in that period also). The F-86 itself might be a better candidate actually: changing a fairly close to equal real fighter-fighter kill ratio situation heavily in the UN side's favor (not as much as claimed, but what kill ratio ever was?, the real ratio was quite high by WWII *real* ratio standards between ostensibly comparable fighters). But I don't think it ranks at the very top in history; in part because the F-86 wasn't able to eliminate the MiG threat to low performance WWII types like B-29 and F-51, both of which (B-29's more importantly) eventually had to stay out of MiG areas (in daylight).

I-16 was a WWII fighter which was a big advance when introduced in peace time relatively long before WWII, but I don't think its combat introductions, in Spanish Civil War and China, rank at the top. It's fair to mention the I-16 in Spain though if nothing else because it reinforces the fact that BF109B introduction in Spain is definitely not the right answer to this question: the Republican forces could still deal reasonably with the Nationalist forces including a few Bf109B's, just as the Nationalist forces could still cope, though with difficulty, with I-16's before that. Neither change was comparable to the Zero's introduction in China, which changed a somewhat competitive (I-16 v Type 96 mainly) situation to totally one sided (no Zeroes at all were downed by Chinese a/c in 1940-41 according to Japanese records, and Japanese bombers were then unchallenged whereas previously they had serious problems with Chinese [some Soviet piloted] fighters).

Joe

 

[Civettone]

I have read that the I-16 was the first fighter with armour. (Some others were mainly attack aircraft.) It was also the first cantilever-winged monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear. Maybe it was also the first to have wing cannons.


Kris

 

[JoeB]

The big issue with the poll is that the question asks 'which fighter brought the biggest new *advantage*' and many people are answering it as 'which fighter brought the biggest new *advance*'. I-16's were the first widely used fighters with armor, and later cannon, though early versions had neither. Just being retractable monoplane in early mid 30's, made it one of the bigger *advances*. But in Spain and China I-16's did not give their side a huge *advantage* when introduced, not as much as other cases. The same goes for the most popular answer, Me262, big *advance*? yes, potential advantage? yes that follows from 'advance'; big "advantage*? in practice, no. The 262 had a very poor kill ratio v Allied piston fighters in the circumstances prevailing, and no those cases were *not* mainly 'taking off and landing'. It was a fairly effective bomber destroyer but overall it didn't give an *advantage* comparable to the case of the Zero, where JNAF went from seriously challenged by the Chinese air arm to virtually not challenged at all, the opposing force basically stopped coming up to meet it. That certainly didn't happen with the Me 262, and the P-51 also established much more of an *advantage* when introduced than the 262 did, if the issue just focusing too much on the European war and not being aware of the air war in China pre 1941.

Joe

 

[tomo pauk]

Zero was flown against design 7 years older (the I-16), and 50 mph slower, in China in late 1940/early 1941. I'd argue that the 1st batch of Zeroes was flown by top-notch pilots.
The *advantage* was easy to come by; Japanese forces really snatched it, no argument there.

 

[renrich]

The "advantage" the Zero conferred was not just China, where it first served but the whole Japanese game plan for the Pearl Harbor attack and subsequent conquest of Southeast Asia was influenced by it's ability to be in the fight a long way from it's bases. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the initial attacks in the Philipines at Clark Field, Cavite, etc were by bombers escorted by Zeros that had been launched from Formosa. No other fighter in the world at that time could fight and fight effectively 300, 400, even 500 miles from it's base or flight deck. If by some miracle the A6M had been escorting the LW bombers in the summer of 1940 over Britain the BoB might have been a different story.

 

[Doughboy]

The ME-262... It was a gigantic technical step forward compared to all previous planes. Nuff' said.

 

[JoeB]

Again I'd just stick with the words in the question to answer the question. Experienced Japanese Navy pilots flying Type 96's v I-16's had generally the better of it but in somewhat competitive combat, but the same quality of pilots were essentially invincible when flying the Zero against the same opponent. And as important, they could range much farther inland in China from their bases relatively near the coast, allowing their bombers free reign in daylight, v previous situation of choosing between night attacks and heavy losses to the Chinese in daylight unescorted against the more distant targets. So I don't see how pilot quality affects the answer that the Zero gave the same pilots a huge new advantage, more than any of the other examples, I think.

I agree the Zero also generally had a big advantage over early Pacific War fighter opponents theoretically much more capable than the I-16 (not quite as one sided).

Again the 262 was an advance and sign of pontential, but was no more successufl against USAAF fighters in practice than German piston a/c were in the actual circumstances in the same period, gave perhaps no practical advantage at all in that respect, paradoxically but true. It did bring an advantage of bomber destroyer that could avoid opposing fighters more ably than other similarly armed piston bomber destroyers (like heavily armed piston twins).

Joe

 

[Civettone]

The 262 had a very poor kill ratio v Allied piston fighters in the circumstances prevailing, and no those cases were *not* mainly 'taking off and landing'.

You have a figure on that ?


I agree with you that the one shouldn't misinterpret the question. But I feel that you are doing the same thing but just in a different way. What about the circumstances which give room for advantage? I think you are overlooking that and simply implying it together with the fighter.

Kris

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps we could agree about one thing: for a plane to bring the advantage, some other stuff (beside the plane itself) need to be achieved.

One thing are the numbers. If an air force, eg. Luftwaffe, is fielding a world-beater jet fighter, the plane would hardly be able to defeat a, say, 5-fold enemy air force (if we subtract the piston-engined LW fighters, the odds worsen by order of magnitude). Since Chinese never fielded a big number of planes (even less fighters, and almost never concentrated), Zero enjoyed a situation 262 pilots only could dream of.

Then we have pilot skills. Since the IJA/IJN ( with Type 97 and A5M) could their hold own (at least) vs. all fighters Chinese could muster, they were unbeatable when flying Zeroes ( Oscars) for the good part of war. The 262 pilots were chosen carefully, but the pilot pool was shrinking every day taking the quality down.

Quality of oposing pilots. IJN/IJA had an edge over Chinese, while LW wasn't enjoying that.

Strategic situation. LW was at defensive, with imperative to go for bombers. When a side in China enjoyed being in offensive, it was Japanese; Chinese rarely. So Zeroes were able to go against what they want, just opposite with 262.

Early warning. When IJA/IJN planes were on a deep bombing run (bombers + escorts), Chinese planes' pilots knew that when bombs start to fall. The bombing run of LW planes (say, Ju-188 with 262 flying escort) was out of question to be attacked, let alone to be conducted without Allies know about that.


So did the Zero brought "brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?"? The plane can get only so much credit as other factors counted above.

 

[JoeB]

You have a figure on that ?


I agree with you that the one shouldn't misinterpret the question. But I feel that you are doing the same thing but just in a different way. What about the circumstances which give room for advantage? I think you are overlooking that and simply implying it together with the fighter.

If you count up in Foreman and Harvey's "Me 262 Combat Diary" Allied piston fighters (mostly US 8th AF) downed well over 100 Me 262's. Me 262's downed very few piston fighters which are documented in that book, especially if you exclude recon P-38's of which they downed several documented on both sides. The ratio is apparently higher than what Allied piston fighters were enjoying over LW piston fighters at the time. Other factors differed in employment of the jets compared to the LW piston planes, but the raw stat was a remarkably poor performance of the jets v piston fighters. They had better success against bombers, and were, as alluded to, pretty effective against piston recon types (Lightning, Mosquito, Spit) that had previously been hard to intercept.

The responses are often giving factually correct info, but again I go back to 'new advantage', which is logically to be interpreted as new advantage for the side introducing the plane at the time and in the situation in which the plane was introduced. The non-aircraft reasons the Zero had a very high fighter v fighter kill ratio in the JNAF/China situation and the Me 262 had a poor one in LW/NWE situation are not directly relevant to the question. The comparison should be between the newly introduced plane and planes immediately previously used by the same side, to find what new advantage the new plane gave to that side at that time. That's the question. 'which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when it was introduced'. I don't know another way to interpret that question.

The JNAF in China (the JAAF wasn't as heavily involved in air combat over China proper) had all the same non-plane advantages over the Chinese flying the Type 96 as flying the Zero. The huge change in balance was due to the Zero, not a sudden change in the other factors. The Zero brought a huge new advantage to the JNAF over China.

The LW had all the same disadvantages in non-airplane factors when flying the Me 262 1944-45 as it did flying the Bf109 and Fw190. But the Me 262 provided no practical advantage in combating Allied fighters in that same situation, some advantage in attacking bombers and lone recon a/c in that situation, but those advantages were somewhat offset by heavy attrition to fighters, as heavy or more than LW piston fighters were suffering. So the Me 262 can't be said IMO to have given the biggest new advantage when introduced. It might be said to be the biggest theoretical advance when introduced.

Joe

 

[Civettone]

Good post Tomo


Kris

 

[Shortround6]

From some of what I have read the Chinese actually had a pretty good early warning system. In the late 30's or 1940 many bombers were cruising at under 200mph and the Japanese were flying long distances. The Chinese sometimes had 20-30 minutes warning of an attack.
While the Chinese may not have large numbers of fighters the number of Zero's used to completely change the situation isn't very large either.

 

[Civettone]

I was doubting between Me 262, Zero, F6F, Lightning and P-51 - and kept asking myself the same question: did it substantially change things? And only with one could I say full heartidly yes: the Me 262.
Not in outcome but it suddenly gave the Luftwaffe a fighter far ahead of anything the allies had, plus an excellent weapon against bombers. Never was the difference in quality so great!

Don't know why the Fw 190 got so many votes though. Except for some low altitude raids what did it add to the fighting of the Bf 109F??

Kris

 

[Clay_Allison]

I don't get this love for the 262. Did it even slow down the bombing raids on Germany? Did it really make life ONE IOTA easier for the Luftwaffe? I don't think it even bought them an extra gasp of air. If it had really caused the allies any kind of setback, stopped the bombing raids for a month, I'd agree but it doesn't seem like any tangible strategic advantage was gained.

Did the P-51 change the war? In spades! A cheap, high altitude, long range fighter able to best the 109 and 190 in combat changed everything about how we attacked Germany.

 

[Civettone]

If the Germans would have been handed a fully operational F-22 Raptor, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. You have to know what you're pointing at here ... The Me 262 simply came too late and couldn't achieve anything. But it did "bring the biggest new advantage when introduced".

P-51 is also a good choice but somehow I feel that the P-38 would have done the very same thing. Its range was also sufficient.

Kris