Spitfires vs. Zeros
Bill Pfender
I just read a reference to the fact that by mid-1943 Allied fighters
were doing well against the Japanese Zero, "with the exception of the
Spitfires out of Australia". A footnote mentions that the Spits' poor
record was mainly due to their short range. Does anyone have details on
how these two types matched up in combat? I don't get the chance to
check newsgroups often, so I'd appreciate replies to my email address.
--Duffy Tweedy
dtw...@ucsd.edu
Michael
> I just read a reference to the fact that by mid-1943 Allied fighters
> were doing well against the Japanese Zero, "with the exception of the
> Spitfires out of Australia". A footnote mentions that the Spits' poor
> record was mainly due to their short range. Does anyone have details on
> how these two types matched up in combat?
> --Duffy Tweedy
> dtw...@ucsd.edu
>
I have read somewhere, sometime that the Spitfire was one of the first
planes to have any real success against the Zero at the beginning of the
Pacific War.
There was one squadron in particular which was made up of British and
Australian fighter pilots if I recall correctly, which used the Spitfire's
superior diving ability and speed to great affect against their agile
opponents. They had realised early on that the Spitfire could not match
the Zero in a dogfight, where the Spitfire was out turned with ease, so
they adopted hit and run tactics. Due to the Zero's relatively low weight
and modestly powerful engine the, at the time, 'invincible' Zeros did not
get a chance to attack the Spitfires after their initial pass.
Ironically in spite of their Spitfire pilot's successes they were branded
as cowards by there own service for using their 'smart' hit and run tactics
and not engaging in a 'chivalrous' dogfight, and they were not acknowledged
for the probably the first major successes over the Japanese in the
Pacific.
Mica
>
Charles K. Scott
In article <5plp13$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
"Michael" <s33...@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
> I have read somewhere, sometime that the Spitfire was one of the first
> planes to have any real success against the Zero at the beginning of the
> Pacific War.
Mica, you wouldn't by any chance remember the source where you read
this would you? It's kind of opposite what most historical texts write
about the first Spitfire/ Zero encounters. Descriptions of the
fighting over Darwin indicate that the British pilots, many of whom
were veterans of the European theater, disregarded American advice
about dogfighting with the Zeros and did so anyway. This had the usual
predictable result in which the Spitfires faired poorly. But they
gradually learned how to counter the Zero's edge in slow to medium
speed maneuvering. The Zero may have been one of the few enemy
fighters the Spitfire was capable of out diving.
I've not read anywhere that Spitfire pilots in the Pacific Theater were
ever censored for aerial tactics. Sounds pretty bizarre.
Corky Scott
CDB100620
British pilots flying Spitfires defending Darwin in the spring of 1942?
Details, please.
Tarjei T. Jensen
A book I once read (title safely forgotten) stated that the Hurricane
that had 12 0.303 machineguns would turn inside a zero if the two outer
machineguns were removed. I always wondered if that meant removing two
or four machineguns :-).
I suppose that the zero pilots did not appreciate this modification.
Greetings,
--
// Tarjei T. Jensen
// tar...@online.no || voice +47 51 62 85 58
// Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
Thomas Fuller
In article <5phb7j$m...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
Bill Pfender <wpfe...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>I just read a reference to the fact that by mid-1943 Allied fighters
>were doing well against the Japanese Zero, "with the exception of the
>Spitfires out of Australia". A footnote mentions that the Spits' poor
>record was mainly due to their short range. Does anyone have details on
>check newsgroups often, so I'd appreciate replies to my email address.
>--Duffy Tweedy
>dtw...@ucsd.edu
>
Institute Press. Brown was a test pilot who has flown both types and
recounts his impressions of the two aircraft. I would trust his
conclusions.
MSouris
Tarjei T. Jensen wrote:
> A book I once read (title safely forgotten) stated that the Hurricane
> that had 12 0.303 machineguns would turn inside a zero if the two outer
> machineguns were removed.
The "classic" Hurricane configuration was *8* 0.303s.
And, that was a tight fit. I don't think that you had to take out any guns
to be down four from the purported 12.
It is possible that a Hurricane might have been able to out turn a Zero.
That doesn't mean that it would have been a better fighter, nor the best
British fighter against the Zero.
The Brewster Buffalo was said by some to have been the U. S. fighter best
able to turn with a Zero, and that was a good thing, as there was no other
choice.
Spits were better velocity fighters than Hurricanes, and after the first
few months of the war, all Allied fighters had learned to use their
advantages to nullify the turning ability of the Zero. IIRC, even the F4F
had a better than 4 to 1 kill ratio at the worst point in its career.
Early P38s and Corsairs were more than a match for Zeros, and who cared if
they could turn, or not.
Henry Hillbrath
Janet Patys
Dear Sir,
With what you wrote one can assume that any German fighter
aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft. I base this on the fact
that most British fighter aircrat(Hurricanes,Spits) can not shoot down a
good luftwaffe pilot in a "109."
The Shannons
MSouris wrote:
>
> Tarjei T. Jensen wrote:
>
> > A book I once read (title safely forgotten) stated that the Hurricane
> > that had 12 0.303 machineguns would turn inside a zero if the two outer
> > machineguns were removed.
>
> The "classic" Hurricane configuration was *8* 0.303s.
>
> And, that was a tight fit. I don't think that you had to take out any guns
> to be down four from the purported 12.
>
>
> Henry Hillbrath
--
The Hurricane F.Mk. I had the armament of 8x.303 Browning MG. This is
the model that fought the Battle of Britain.
During that air fighting, it was realized that there was a need for more
hitting power to knock down bombers in a single high-speed pass, as the
vulnerablity of the German bombers to damage that did not make critical
hits was much greater than initial estimates.
Two approaches were used -- in the F.Mk. II Hurricanes there was the
four cannon installation using Hispano-Suiza cannon (Oerlikons were also
studied). But the most common armament of the initial Mk. II was twelve
.303 MG in the wings. They were in two groups in each wing -- the
earlier four grouping in a relatively straight line, and the outer two
outside the position of the landing lights and staggered to that the
openings looked diagonal to each other.
Against the Japanese aircraft, it was found that the planes did not need
all the hitting power, but did need the manuverability and climb that
the heavier wing armament had lost them. They were more likely to be
involved in dogfighting than straight interception as they had been in
the Battle of Britain. I do not think any of the 20MM-cannon armed
Hurricanes reached the Burma/Malaya theater in time, as they were in
demand for fighter bomber use on the channel coast and in the desert.
This kind of armament rearranging was common. The F4F Wildcat went
through a similar change, as the F4F-3's four .50 cal armament was
increased to six .50 in the F4F-4, but the FM series of Wildcats had the
armament reduced to four again as they did not need the extra power and
pilots had complained about the loss of ammunition on a rounds-per-gun
basis. It was also not uncommon for F4U pilots to have one of the guns
removed from each wing to increase the ammo for the remaining four.
"Lightweight" versions of the P-40 (L, M, N) and the P-51H also cut the
armament by a gun per wing -- in the P-40 case the pilots often added
the gun back into the empty bay. Better pilots/shooters often felt they
preferred fewer, more rounds-per- gun armament and lighter fixtures
(when the extra gun was removed, the extra ammunition did not add as
much weight back as the removal gained. The increase in ammunition load
became space-limited rather than weight-limited.)
Moelders and Galland had this argument over the Bf(Me)-109F, where the
wing 20MM cannon were removed and a central 15MM (later 20MM) cannon was
put in the spinner (this installation had been tried at various times in
the 109E series, with little operational luck). Moelders preferred the
one central cannon, Galland preferred the heavier armament. Galland may
have been thinking in terms of the average pilot and bomber interception
(though this was in late 1940-early '41, before the U.S. bombers and
their box formations were on the scene), rather than personally, but the
discussions never made this clear.
Some of the Japanese pilots removed the 7.76MM MG from the cowling
position in the Zero, leaving only the wing 20MM cannon. These two guns
were relatively little use except for firing tracers to mark the line of
sight (similarly for the 7.9MM MG in the Bf-109E, F, and G-0 through G-4
cowlings)
Aside from the Hurricane's extra two guns, the Spitfire pilots,
especially when their Mk. V's were faced with the superior FW-190A,
removed the .303's and relied of the cannon for the same reason.
Apparently P-47 Thunderbolts had power to spare, as I don't know of any
cases where there was wide-spread removal of any of their battery of
eight .50 cal. This armament could cut through any opposition it faced
like a chainsaw through a sapling, and was probably a bit overgunned. A
"Lightweight" P-47 was tested (I think they saved about 800lb out of
seven TONS) but not found to have any advantage.
--
This has been Mark and/or Mary Shannon
at Shin...@ix.netcom.com
History manages to get away with cliches no novelist could.
Tarjei T. Jensen
MSouris wrote:
>
> Tarjei T. Jensen wrote:
>
> > A book I once read (title safely forgotten) stated that the Hurricane
> > that had 12 0.303 machineguns would turn inside a zero if the two outer
> > machineguns were removed.
>
> The "classic" Hurricane configuration was *8* 0.303s.
>
> And, that was a tight fit. I don't think that you had to take out any guns
> to be down four from the purported 12.
>
They were a tight fit in a Spitfire. The Hurricane wing was something
completely different.
John M. Atkinson
Janet Patys wrote:
>
> Dear Sir,
> With what you wrote one can assume that any German fighter
> aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft. I base this on the fact
They likely could. Japanese military was formed from their experiences
in China in the 1930s. They had no armor, and most other categories of
equipment were obsolete. They stayed in the war as long as they did
because of the sheer tenacity and fighting spirit of the individual
soldiers, as well as an apparent native genius for fortification.
> that most British fighter aircrat(Hurricanes,Spits) can not shoot down a
> good luftwaffe pilot in a "109."
Don't kid yourself. Look at loss ratios in Battle of Britain.
--
John M. Atkinson
jatk...@ix.netcom.com
rex sedet in vertice;
caveat ruinam!
Nam sub axe legimus:
HECUBAM REGINAM
-Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
Jim Thorpe
On 20 Jul 1997 04:15:17 GMT, The Shannons wrote:
:>The Hurricane F.Mk. I had the armament of 8x.303 Browning MG. This is
:>the model that fought the Battle of Britain.
:>
:>During that air fighting, it was realized that there was a need for more
:>hitting power to knock down bombers in a single high-speed pass, as the
:>vulnerablity of the German bombers to damage that did not make critical
:>hits was much greater than initial estimates.
:>
There were Hurricanes in Italy that we called 'can openers'. I believe they
had a 40mm cannon on each wing and were used to attack German tanks. As a
'brown job' I saw them in action from the ground. One day I was in the 3rd.
floor of a large house and watched them going below the tops of the olive
trees after tanks!!!. I believe it was an Aussie squadron, which could
explain it :-)
Joel Ehrlich
feed.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.tminet.com!208.145.132.43
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-17-max-sjvt-01.ramp.together.net
Organization: Together Networks - Burlington, VT.
In article <5qrves$85p$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, on 19 Jul 1997 23:08:12 -0400
jpa...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Dear Sir,
> With what you wrote one can assume that any German fighter
>aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft. I base this on the fact
>that most British fighter aircrat(Hurricanes,Spits) can not shoot down a
>good luftwaffe pilot in a "109."
>
Possible.
But your statement does require that you first explain all those dead and
captured German Bf-109 pilots shot down over England during the "Battle of
Britain".
Joel
Jay Martino
Janet Patys <jpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> With what you wrote one can assume that any German fighter
>aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft. I base this on the fact
>that most British fighter aircrat(Hurricanes,Spits) can not shoot down a
>good luftwaffe pilot in a "109."
>
The Spitfire outperformed the Me109. The key is the pilot, since, to
reverse your point, most German fighter aircraft can not shoot down a
good RAF pilot in a Spitfire.
Comparing technical details is all fine, but WWII aircraft tended to
be close enough in performance (with a few notable exceptions) that
who was holding the stick was more important than anything else.
Jay
"Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
by e-mail.
CDB100620
>any German fighter
>> aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft.
Sidney Woods, who served with the 9FS of the 49FG in the SWPA and then as
CO of the 4FG in the ETO would not agree with you. It was his opinion
that the Japanese were more aggressive pilots than the Germans, and while
with some aircraft types (Oscar, Zero) if you hit them they burned easily,
it was damned hard to hit them. Other types (Tojo, Tony) were tough to
bring down even when you could hit them. Woods was able to down two
Japanese planes in the SWPA and eight German planes (including five
FW-190s) in the ETO. It was his view that the Bf 109 was inferior in
flying characteristics to all the mentioned Japanese planes, although it
was faster in level flight and the dive than the Oscar and the Zero. He
felt the Tojo was equal in performance (climb, speed, dive) to the FW 190,
but could easily outmaneuver it.
George Preddy, who also served with the 9FS of the 49FG was unable to down
even a single Japanese plane, but shot down 26 German planes in the ETO.
It's worth noting that while the Germans stuck with the Bf 109 and FW 190
throughout the war, never introducing a new single-engine piston fighter
(except the FW 190D variant), the Japanese, in addition to the quartet
mentioned, also brought into production the Frank, the Jack, and the
Ki-100 (we can count this one as similar in development process to the FW
190D). They also produced the excellent high-speed recon plane, the
Dinah, which the Germans tried to get a license to build.
Japanese aircraft often incorporated a number of clever and well
thought-out features that indicated a keen and sophisticated understanding
of aviation design and manufacturing. While it is obvious they were
behind the West in aircraft engine technology, they weren't that far
behind, and in airframe design they weren't behind at all (the strikingly
clean designs of Japanese fighers, in particular the Tojo and Frank, make
them among the most beautiful aircraft ever produced). The Japanese did
suffer build quality problems towards the end of the war--but so did the
Germans.
It should be kept in mind that Japanese aircraft were designed to meet the
needs of the Japanese strategic war situation, which demanded long range
ability. German fighters and bombers would have been virtually useless to
the Japanese because of their short range. It could be argued that the
lack of long-range aircraft doomed Germany's war effort from the start.
Imagine what good use Germany could have put Japanese twin-engined Navy
bombers of the type that sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales to--for
example, in attacking allied shipping far out over the Atlantic, or
bombing Soviet production centers beyond the Urals; or long-range Japanese
fighters that could have covered all of Britain, or patrolled over London
for hours, or flow missions from southern Europe to North Africa.
CDB100620
Mike Fester
Dan Ford (d...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: We do in fact know from the Battle of Britain that early Hurricanes were
: effective (if just barely) against the contemporary Bf 109, and we also
: know from the battles of Malaya and Burma that both the Zero and the
: Hayabusa (Nakajima Ki-43) were superior to the same mark of Hurricane, as
: flown. So we could, if we wished to carry this logic to its conclusion,
: argue that the Japanese fighters were superior to the German.
I was under the impression that the Hurricanes in question were rushed over
from Africa, and were still fitted with the desert filters. Supposedly,
this also hindered performance.
(Not that I think the 'Canes were going to do much against the Zeros.)
Mike
Charles K. Scott
In article <5r7ms6$i...@portal.gmu.edu>
cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) writes:
> Imagine what good use Germany could have put Japanese twin-engined Navy
> bombers of the type that sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales to--for
> example, in attacking allied shipping far out over the Atlantic, or
> bombing Soviet production centers beyond the Urals; or long-range Japanese
> fighters that could have covered all of Britain, or patrolled over London
> for hours, or flow missions from southern Europe to North Africa.
All you say makes sense but the extreme range of the Japanese aircraft
came at the expense of self sealing tanks and cockpit armor. The Betty
in particular had a nickname given to it by the Japanese themselves
refering to a flaming coffin.
In the ETO, both the Germans and Britains quickly modified their
aircraft to incorporate armor and self sealing tanks. The
Messerschmitt and Spitfire were remarkably similar to each other. Both
had high power V-12's stuffed into the smallest possible airframe with
the thinnest wings that could be designed at the time. The thin wings
more or less precluded them from being capable of carrying fuel.
Without the ability to carry fuel in the wings, the total amount of
fuel they carried was very low compared to the Zero and later, to the
Mustang.
The Mustang was a very efficient fighter, with the lowest aerodynamic
drag of any WWII fighter but it was the amount of fuel it could carry
that set it apart from it's contemporaries.
Of course, the P-47 became a long range fighterbecause of the amount of
fuel it was capable of hauling in external drop tanks and the Zero's
long range was due to the fact that it flew it's long range missions
with an external belly tank.
Corky Scott
Emmanuel.Gustin
Tarjei T. Jensen (tar...@online.no) wrote:
: They were a tight fit in a Spitfire. The Hurricane wing was something
: completely different.
Actually the awkwardness of the gun mounts for those additional four guns
was an important factor in deleting them. Maintenance was made more
difficult.
Comparing the Hurricane with the A6M is not entirely fair, because the
British knew very well that the Hurricane was obsolete. Even in the
summer of 1940 the performance of the Hurricane had been a serious
concern, and by late 1941 the aircraft was no longer an acceptable fighter
for European conditions, although it still was a capable fighter-bomber.
The RAF would probably not have sent Hurricanes to the Far East had they
not been obsolete.
Emmanuel Gustin
Scott T. Hards
CDB100620 wrote:
> It should be kept in mind that Japanese aircraft were designed to meet the
> needs of the Japanese strategic war situation, which demanded long range
> ability. German fighters and bombers would have been virtually useless to
> the Japanese because of their short range. It could be argued that the
> lack of long-range aircraft doomed Germany's war effort from the start.
> Imagine what good use Germany could have put Japanese twin-engined Navy
> bombers of the type that sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales to--for
> example, in attacking allied shipping far out over the Atlantic, or
> bombing Soviet production centers beyond the Urals; or long-range Japanese
> fighters that could have covered all of Britain, or patrolled over London
> for hours, or flow missions from southern Europe to North Africa.
This is one of the most important points anyone has made on this group
about aircraft in some time. I had the opportunity to sit down and talk
with Saburo Sakai (63-kill ace) at his home in Tokyo last year (I speak
Japanese). He repeatedly stressed that the single most important
attribute a good fighter aircraft could have was range. He was of the
opinion that Germany could have easily beaten the Brits if they had
imported 1,000 Zeroes from Japan, as its subperb range would have have
given Luftwaffe pilots the ability to escort their bombers from almost
any European base, to targets over Britain, and all the way back. Not
only that, he claims the Luftwaffe would have done much better in
fighter-to-fighter combat against the RAF with the Zero for
manuverability and range reasons. On the latter, he said (and I'm
quoting from memory, not verbatim), "Do you know how important having
gas in your tanks is? It affects everything you do in your plane. When
you know you're low on fuel, you can't even concentrate on fighting an
enemy plane. You're afraid to open the throttle all the way up, or do
manuvers that burn a lot of fuel. And of course, you break off the
fight sooner. There are hundreds of Bf109s at the bottom of the English
Channel because of their poor range."
Everyone likes to talk about durability and manuverability when debating
the merits of fighter aircraft, but the less-glamorous range attribute
was perhaps more important than many people realize.
Brian
On 22 Jul 1997, Jay Martino wrote:
> Comparing technical details is all fine, but WWII aircraft tended to
> be close enough in performance (with a few notable exceptions) that
> who was holding the stick was more important than anything else.
To a certain extent, yes. I'd recommend you get a hold of
Group-Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown's excellent series of books on testing
various WWII (and later) aircraft. In one, ("Testing for Combat" I
believe) he actually compares the performance of opposing aircraft from
the viewpoint of the pilot (ie as if he was piloting _both_ aircraft).
The results, at the end of each chapter are very enlightening. In many
cases, while the higher performance aircraft is destined usually to "win"
this paper exercise, sometimes as in the case of the Swordfish, the
results can be surprising.
Brown has the advantage that he was the Chief Test Pilot at
Farnborough just post-war and he was an experienced RN Fleet Air-Arm
pilot with several kills to his name (including one of the first Fw-200
Condors). He has over 200 aircraft on his log-book, including most of
the major Axis and all of the major Allied fighters.
Well worth looking out for, if you can get a hold of _any_ of his
books.
--Brian Ross---------------------------------------------------------------
"Go on, shoot coward. You're only killing a man!"
The last words of Ernesto Guevara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Zoraster
Mike Fester wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that the Hurricanes in question were
> rushed over from Africa, and were still fitted with the desert
> filters. Supposedly, this also hindered performance.
>
> (Not that I think the 'Canes were going to do much against the
> Zeros.)
>
Yes, 50 Huricanes were diverted from North Africa still fitted
with desert filters which did hinder performance. They were
flown off one of the British carriers to reach Singapore. Still,
the key to fighting Zeros was _not_ to slow down and dog fight them.
If you couldn't get into position for a quick pass, then run away
and trust your armored seat. I think that even WIldcats did
reasonably against Zeros once they figured this out. So 50
Hurricanes with the proper filters, support, etc., plus radar
and the right tactics could have made a real difference if they
had been in Singapore on December 8th.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Steven Zoraster Email: s...@zycor.lgc.com |
take_this_out Ralph H
In article <5rautq$r...@portal.gmu.edu>, cdb1...@aol.com (CDB100620) says:
>
>
>>any German fighter
>>> aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft.
>
Comparing aircraft that have never seen combat against each other is
a difficult and somewhat moot problem. For a start one would have to
compare at each time what specific model was in operation and also
the relative performance of those aircraft in actual combat.
The BF109f and the FW190's available in 1941 and 1942 were capable
of level speeds of 50+mph over any available Japanese types. they
were tougher, and at least as good or better in terms
of firepower. they dominated totally the available allied types of
the time and it was not until the arrival of the Spitfire Mark IX
that the RAF regained parity with german fighter technology. Any good
source on the Air War will verify these assertions. The ability of a
small number of german fighters to maintain air superiority over the
numerically superior and well trained RAF in Western Francesupports
the excellence of their machines and their pilots.
Japanese fighter combat and design philophy emphasized dogfighting;
maneuverabilitiy and the design teams sacrificed much to acheive this.
Where opponents attempted to combat the Japanese at speeds below 200mph
(to play their game) the Japanese dominated.
However subsequent events in the war and the success of the P-38, Hellcat
and Corsair proved that air superiority in fighter performance was dependent
on (in order of importance) speed, fire power, toughness and (lastly)
maneuverability. The japanese never appreciated this and most designs
subsequent to the A6M continued to emphsize maneuverability over speed.
Heavy casualities among the A6M3 and A6M5 Zero types proved the light armour
of that model made it inferiour to existing American designs. Most subsequent
models were attempts to maintain A6M maneuverability while addressing the
durability problem of the Zero and Oscar fighter types.
It is my guess that if the RAF or the Germans had ever to combat Japanese
aircraft for a lengthy campaign they would have learned the same lessons
as the Americans and avoided classic dogfights and concentrated on high
speed action and 'bounce' tactics. The German aircraft were well
suited to this role having good climb, dive and ample firepower.
>It's worth noting that while the Germans stuck with the Bf 109 and FW 190
>throughout the war, never introducing a new single-engine piston fighter
>(except the FW 190D variant), the Japanese, in addition to the quartet
>mentioned, also brought into production the Frank, the Jack, and the
>Ki-100 (we can count this one as similar in development process to the FW
>190D).
[snipped]
true but this was for lack of trying as events of 1940 and 1941 lead the
Germans to believe new types wouldn't be necessary. Even throughout 1942
the BF109f and FW190 proved to be superior to any existing allied
competition. In 1943 the course of the airwar changed so dramatically
the German priority became the simple production of planes.
It is also worth noting that the variants of the BF109 saw that planes
max speed increase from about 350mph to over 450mph through the course of the
war. Likewise the FW190 went from about 390mph in 1941 to 440mph+ with
methanol power boost. So the Germans made considerable improvements to the
performance of their existing models.
Ralph H
CDB100620
>o 50
>Hurricanes with the proper filters, support, etc., plus radar
>and the right tactics could have made a real difference if they
>had been in Singapore on December 8th.
Radar was available in Singapore, plus Hurricanes. The "Bloody Shambles"
volumes have details on this. An interesting first-person view is to be
found in "Last Flight From Singapore" by Arthur Donahue, an American in
the RAF who fought the Japanese at Singapore and who had also fought in
the Battle of Britain.
Michael Turton
An interesting first-person view is to be
found in "Last Flight From Singapore" by Arthur Donahue, an American in
the RAF who fought the Japanese at Singapore and who had also fought in
the Battle of Britain.
_________________________
Well, what did he say?????
Mikw
Manuel McAuley
manuel mcauley wrote:
I believe you people are bickering over minor trivial matters concerning
this topic, might i suggest a good biography written about the highest
scoring ace of world war 2
Eric Hartmann, a German no less. Not only does this emphasise Luftwaffe
fighter pilot skill early in the war but it gives a great insight into the
life of a Major in the Nazi Luftwaffe. It was actually written by 2 leading
USAF fighter pilots. Magnificent reading. This will reinforce and enlighten
the facts that personal skills of the German pilots were nothing less than
excellant. However later in the war due to the tireless combat and
logistical shortages, Germany started sending boys to do a mans job. Lack
of age - lack of skill. By this time Allied pilots were learning the ways
of aerial combat and developing new skills. Making them supreme in the air.
Though in a fair fight in the air it all comes down to personal skills and
a good aircraft, both of which the Spitfire and Me 109 inarguably were. The
Japenese however could almost be likened to the German story, after all
they were allies.
I wonder have you people stopped to think of the Russians?
The name of that book is "The Blonde Night of Germany"
authors: Trevor J Constable & Raymond F Toliver
publisher: Tab Aero Division of McGraw Hill
ABSOLUTELY INTREPID READING
Jay Martino <mjmartino@igs*.net> wrote in article
<5r3p60$ge7$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
> Janet Patys <jpa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > With what you wrote one can assume that any German fighter
> >aircraft could outclass a Japaneese aircraft. I base this on the fact
> >that most British fighter aircrat(Hurricanes,Spits) can not shoot down a
> >good luftwaffe pilot in a "109."
> >
> The Spitfire outperformed the Me109. The key is the pilot, since, to
> reverse your point, most German fighter aircraft can not shoot down a
> good RAF pilot in a Spitfire.
>
> Comparing technical details is all fine, but WWII aircraft tended to
> be close enough in performance (with a few notable exceptions) that
> who was holding the stick was more important than anything else.
>
>
CDB100620
>"Last Flight From Singapore" by Arthur Donahue, an American in
>the RAF who fought the Japanese at Singapore and who had also fought in
>the Battle of Britain.
>
>_________________________
>
> Well, what did he say?????
>
>
>Mikw
Haven't read the book in a while, but as best I recollect:
His view of the Japanese pilots (would have been Army types flying Ki-43s)
was that they were very well trained and highly aggressive--much more so
than German pilots. The Japanese pilots preferred to close to
knife-fighting range and duel one-on-one. The Germans even in 1940
preferred the yo-yo--bounce from above and zoom back to altitude. Donahue
said he was actually trained to fight the way the Japanese did, but that
the Battle of Britain had provided little opportunity for that type of
engagement. Fighting the Japanese was a more intense experience than
fighting the Germans because any engagement with German fighters was
brief--they were there and away very quickly. The Japanese came and
stuck around to dogfight and weren't leaving until somebody was shot down.
He noted that when radar alerted the Hurricanes to an incoming raid and
they scrambled to intercept, the Japanese bombers often would retreat and
circle until the Hurricanes were forced to land due to fuel shortage.
Then the bombers would head back in and bomb their target unopposed.
When they were able to intercept the bombers, he was surprised that they
did not dump their bombs and run. That was his experience with German
bombers during the battle of Britain; the Germans seemed to subscribe to
the philosophy of running away to fight another day. The Japanese would
slog along to the target no matter how badly they were being hit.
He was able to carry out some very effective straffing attacks against
Japanese ground troops. He recounts one episode when his flight discovers
barges full of Japanese troops and machineguns them repeatedly, the blood
of the hundreds of soldiers turning the sea as red as paint.
Lars Arnestam
CDB100620 wrote:
>
snip
> Imagine what good use Germany could have put Japanese twin-engined Navy
> bombers of the type that sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales to--for
> example, in attacking allied shipping far out over the Atlantic, or
> bombing Soviet production centers beyond the Urals;
snip
The Germans did have a long range bomber: The Focke-Wulf Condor, which
when used as you suggest during the first part of the war was considered
a real threat to British shipping. Later on in the war it was
neutralised by escort carriers and by Liberators used for ocean patrols.
(I've read somewhere that there actually occured virtual dogfights
between Condors and Liberators over the Atlantic.)
Lars Arnestam
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <5rlicl$3lt$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
heid...@direct.ca (take_this_out) (Ralph H) writes:
> However subsequent events in the war and the success of the P-38, Hellcat
> and Corsair proved that air superiority in fighter performance was dependent
> on (in order of importance) speed, fire power, toughness and (lastly)
> maneuverability. The japanese never appreciated this and most designs
> subsequent to the A6M continued to emphsize maneuverability over speed.
Not true. The Japanese designers realized in already in 1942 that the
speed was becoming more important than maneuverability. The first
Japanese "energy fighter" was the Ki.44 Tojo, which was a dedicated
interceptor. It entered service already in autumn 1942, so actually at
least some Japanese designers realized the importance of speed even
before 1942. The Japanese pilots didn't like the plane initially,
because it had poor maneuverability, but later they learned to respect
its speed and diving performance. The Ki.44 was one of the few
Japanese fighters capable of intercepting the B-29.
The next Japanese Army fighters was the Ki.61 Tony, which was powered
by a license build German liquid-cooled engine (DB 601A). It also had
an emphasis on speed and in principal the fighter was
excellent. However, the Japanese never learned to make the engines
reliable, as both the aircraft industry and the field mechanics only
had experience on air-cooled engines. The overall success of the model
was mixed because of the unreliable engines. In 1945 the remaining
Ki.61 airframes were modified for a Japanese radial engine and the
result was the Ki.100, which many people consider to be the best
Japanese fighter of the war.
Of course there was also the Ki.84 Frank, which was an excellently
balanced design with speed, sufficient firepower and still a very good
maneuverability. The design never realized its full potential, but
nevertheless it was a great success. Later examples of this model
actually had lower performance due to production difficulties.
The only Japanese Navy "energy fighter" with a good record was the
N1K1/2-J George. It wasn't as fast as the Allied planes, but its other
characteristics were excellent. Despite its lower maximum speed it was
a good match for the P-51D in the hands of a capable pilot.
> Heavy casualities among the A6M3 and A6M5 Zero types proved the light armour
> of that model made it inferiour to existing American designs. Most subsequent
> models were attempts to maintain A6M maneuverability while addressing the
> durability problem of the Zero and Oscar fighter types.
Well, the Japanese Navy never fielded a working replacement for the
A6M Zero series. The intended successor, A7M Sam, never reached
operational status due to many teething problems, and later production
difficulties. It was going to be a balanced design, not a pure
dogfighting machine like the Zero.
> It is my guess that if the RAF or the Germans had ever to combat Japanese
> aircraft for a lengthy campaign they would have learned the same lessons
> as the Americans and avoided classic dogfights and concentrated on high
> speed action and 'bounce' tactics. The German aircraft were well
> suited to this role having good climb, dive and ample firepower.
Well, the Germans did not have to learn the lesson as they already
used the 'bounce' or 'dive and zoom' tactics in 1940 against the Brits!
>>It's worth noting that while the Germans stuck with the Bf 109 and FW 190
>>throughout the war, never introducing a new single-engine piston fighter
>>(except the FW 190D variant),
You probably mean the Ta-152. Of course, nothing else would have been
needed, if the Ta-152 had entered production earlier. The Ta-152H was
an excellent high altitude interceptor and the Ta-152C was a good
all-around fighter, but it never entered production. The Japanese
fielded many different fighters, but that was partly only because
Japan had two air forces (Army and Navy) with separate fighter
designs. Other reason was that the Zero and the Oscar had much less
development potential than the Bf-109 or the Fw-190 and so became
obsolete much faster than the German fighters.
Furthermore, the Germans also had things that say 'whoosh'...
Tero P. Mustalahti
Dan Ford
The Ki-44 Shoki (Demon) actually went into service in December 1941, when
an independent squadron was sent to Saigon to help provide fighter cover
for bombers operating against Rangoon. However, they couldn't operate out
of rough fields in Thailand, so their role was limited to meeting the
bombers on their return.
The same squadron saw combat very briefly in Burma in the spring of 1942
and evidently was in combat with the AVG Flying Tigers on one occasion.
One plane may have stumbled into the battle of Magwe in March 1942 and
shot down. Because it was a test outfit, all the pilots were officers,
very unusual in the Japanese air forces.
Following the Doolittle raid in April, the Shokis were brought home as
bomber interceptors--so thin were Japan's resources even at that early
date. The only planes available at that time for home defense were
obsolete Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate" types.
However, it's not quite true to say that the Japanese army had foresworn
dogfighting. The Shoki was designed to intercept bombers, as you say, and
not to mix it up with other fighters.
Essentially, the plane was a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa with a bomber engine.
- Dan (http://www.concentric.net/~danford)
Brewster Buffalo / Flying Tigers / Germany at War / Japan at War
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <5rrnsm$6...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Lars Arnestam <lars.a...@al.etx.ericsson.se> writes:
> The Germans did have a long range bomber: The Focke-Wulf Condor, which
> when used as you suggest during the first part of the war was considered
> a real threat to British shipping.
The Condor was not a real long range bomber. It was an airliner later
modified for maritime patrol. It could not have been used as a real
strategic bomber. The German attempt to build a real strategic bomber
was the He-177, but it ended up as being one of the worst failures in
aircraft design during WWII. There were also plans for a long
range bomber before the war, called the "Ural-bomber", as it was
supposed to have long enough range to bomb the Soviet factories in the
Urals. However, all plans were dropped before the war started.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Paul F Austin
Lars Arnestam wrote:
>
> CDB100620 wrote:
> > Imagine what good use Germany could have put Japanese twin-engined Navy
> > bombers of the type that sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales to--for
> > example, in attacking allied shipping far out over the Atlantic, or
> > bombing Soviet production centers beyond the Urals;
>
> The Germans did have a long range bomber: The Focke-Wulf Condor, which
> when used as you suggest during the first part of the war was considered
> a real threat to British shipping.
>
The Condor was hugely expensive to build and wasn't a very good maritime
bomber. If the Germans had built Mitsubishi G4M1s under license, they
could have interdicts most shipping as far west as Iceland. The Japanese
land-based twin engine bombers were remarkable designs from a range
standpoint although _very_ inflammable.
--
Eat a live toad, first thing in the morning
and nothing worse will happen to you all day
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
Chris Hodgson
> (I've read somewhere that there actually occured virtual dogfights
> between Condors and Liberators over the Atlantic.)
>
> Lars Arnestam
I read an excellent book on Coastal Comand a couple of years ago that
described a Lockheed Hudson intercepting a Condor. Armed only with two
fixed 303 front and two in a turret it took an age to shoot down the
german plane. They nearly ran out of ammunition and the whole plane
stank of gunsmoke. I don't remeber any description of the german
gunners returing fire - just as well - I think they were better
equipped.....
Chris Hodgson
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON when replying via email
» I read an excellent book on Coastal Comand a couple of years ago that
» described a Lockheed Hudson intercepting a Condor. Armed only with two
Did you know that the Lt. Bernhard Berndt, captain of a U-Boat, surrendered
the submarine, on its 1941 maiden voyage, to a Hudson aircraft?
Imprisoned at Grizedale Hall, Cumberland, other German prisoners made his
life unbearable and he was told that there "was no longer any room" at the
camp. He managed to escape, but was soon captured by the Home Guard. When
it was clear he was being taken back to Grizedale, he broke away, ignored
shouts to stop, and the HG opened fire, killing him.
Source:- THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY (Kendal Burt & James Leasor)
FYI, Grizedale Hall was demolished many years ago and is now a popular
caravan and camping site. The owners were very interested in its wartime
history and told me that they occasionally get ex PoWs back there.
It was from Grizedale that Oblt. Franz von Werra made his first escape.
Details, if anyone's interested.........
Rob Davis MSc MIAP Leicester, UK 0976 379489
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON when replying via email
» An interesting first-person view is to be
» found in "Last Flight From Singapore" by Arthur Donahue, an American in
» the RAF who fought the Japanese at Singapore and who had also fought in
» the Battle of Britain.
Pilot Officer A G Donahue, American, served during the BofB with No 64
(Fighter) Squadron RAF and was killed later in the war.
Rgmac333
i thought the zero fighter was faster and more
manueravble and the spitfire was more durable
as well as a fast air machine. did these two aircraft
ever meet in combat?
D-Som
Well I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on the
Warplanes of WWII but I do have a great interest in them, from what I
understand the Zero was very manuverable but also one of the slowest
planes.
The Spitfire was very fast with good manuverability and also had
better weapons.
As far as the two meeting in combat? (Wouldnt that be "Seafires")
I have no clue but if they did I think the Zero wouldnt have had a
chance
I really cannot say if all this is correct since I am really only
starting to learn about these planes and I was not there<g>
Please correct me if I am wrong
D---
ptah_...@hotmail.com
These are only my opinions mind you.
DKS
x-no-archive:yes
nightjar
Gary J. Mac Donald <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<5tvmr2$f...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>...
>
> At least one squadron of Spits went into Singapore
> before it fell, and was very roughly handled.
I have always understood that the first use of Spitfires overseas was 15 Mk
VBs flown from HMS Eagle into Malta on 7 March 1942 - three weeks after the
fall of Singapore.
Nightjar
Bbbbbrad
It appears a possibility not mentioned previously exists for an encounter
between a Zero and a Spitfire/Seafire.
I am referring to the operations in spring and summer 1945 where US and
British carriers operated near Japan and struck Japanese ports, factories, etc.
I realize that by this time period, many British carriers were equipped
with US built aircraft, but it seems possible that some Seafires might have
been present.
Is there anyone who might have information on types of aircraft used by
the British during these operations or perhaps information on actual
encounters?
Mark Sieving
ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gary J. Mac Donald) wrote:
>
>Rgmac333 (rgma...@aol.com) writes:
>> i thought the zero fighter was faster and more
>> manueravble and the spitfire was more durable
The Zero was very manueverable, but not terribly fast, with a top
speed of 330 - 350 mph, depending on the version. All versions of the
Spitfire were faster than any Zero.
>At least one squadron of Spits went into Singapore
>before it fell, and was very roughly handled.
There were no Spitfires, or even Hurricanes, at Singapore. The most
modern fighter the British had at Singapore was the Brewster Buffalo.
The Far East was low on British priorities, and didn't receive top of
the line aircraft until much later. The first Spitfires to see action
in the Far East were Mk Vs, based at Darwin, Australia, in early 1943,
and in Burma beginning in October, 1943.
-- Mark Sieving
msie...@mcs.net
mm...@ibm.net
In <5u487b$b...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, bbbb...@aol.com (Bbbbbrad) writes:
>It appears a possibility not mentioned previously exists for an encounter
>between a Zero and a Spitfire/Seafire.
>
four years in CBI. Surely there were some Spitfire/Zero encounters.
Mike
Dan Ford
> There were no Spitfires, or even Hurricanes, at Singapore. The most
> modern fighter the British had at Singapore was the Brewster Buffalo.
> The Far East was low on British priorities, and didn't receive top of
> the line aircraft until much later. The first Spitfires to see action
> in the Far East were Mk Vs, based at Darwin, Australia, in early 1943,
> and in Burma beginning in October, 1943.
Not so. Hurricane squadrons were moved into Singapore and Rangoon in
January 1942.
51 crated Hurricanes were unloaded at Singapore on 13 January. They were
formed into 232 Squadron (Provisional).
Those bound for Rangoon were flown from North Africa. The squadrons were
17, 135, and 136.
- Dan (http://www.concentric.net/~danford)
Flying Tigers / Brewster Buffalo / Germany at War / Japan at War
Brian
On 4 Sep 1997, Steve Zoraster wrote:
> CDB100620 wrote:
> > During the strikes against Honshu, the British claimed to have
> > destroyed or damaged (rather vague) 341 enemy aircraft for a loss
> > of 101 of their own.
> --
>
> I have read several times that the relatively weak landing gear
> on seafires(plus poor pilot visibility during landing) led to
> more (?) losses than actual combat with the Japanese.
In 1943, during the Solarno landings this was true, but they were
using primarily escort, rather than fleet carriers and the "crabbed"
landing approach had not yet been fully implemented by FAA pilots. By
1945, the loss rates for Spitfires due to landing accidents was higher
than for most other carrier borne fighters, it was not so great as you claim.
> The
> British simply did not produce good FAA aircraft before or
> during WWII. (Except the Swordfish, which is in a funny class
> of its own.)
Indeed. The Swordfish was both the most successful carrier-borne
torpedo equipped aircraft in the whole war (sinking a greater tonnage
than anyother) and it was also, according to Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown,
chief naval test pilot at Farnborough, the most maneavvrable. When he
undertook tests of its maneavrability against fighter aircraft in 1941 in
mock combats with Spitfires, he was able, apparently, to literally stand
the Swordfish on a wingtip and turn it around. He speaks in glowing
terms of the aircraft in several of his books on flight testing various
and sundry aircraft.
Interestingly, he also believes the Seafire was an excellent
naval fighter, perhaps the best adaptation of a land-based aircraft to
naval use and one which gave the FAA a considerable edge in 1942 onwards
over its likely Axis opponents.
MGenda
>The Swordfish was both the most successful carrier-borne
>torpedo equipped aircraft in the whole war (sinking a greater tonnage
>than anyother)
I'd have to get the calculator out & haven't bothered to add up the
tonnage, but I suspect the TBM's at Truk in Feb 1944 sank more tonnage in
one raid than the Swordfish sank during the entire war. Even if not,
though, the point above is misleading. The FAA replaced the "stringbags"
with Avengers themselves, realizing the vastly improved performance &
survivability of that plane over the Swordfish. And, the Avenger sank many
times more shipping via torpedos and bombs (the USN correctly realizing
that bombs were actually more effective than torpedos & hence arming their
TBM's that way later in the war).
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <5ve8op$t...@portal.gmu.edu>,
mge...@AOL.COM (MGenda) writes:
[the rest snipped]
> (the USN correctly realizing
> that bombs were actually more effective than torpedos & hence arming their
> TBM's that way later in the war).
Well, it depends on the target. Against unarmored targets like
merchant ships bombs were probably more effective, but against armored
warships and especially capital ships torpedoes were certainly more
effective. It was very difficult to sink a heavy cruiser or a battleship
with bombs alone.
Tero P. Mustalahti