Zero fighter effectiveness at end of war
Fletcher O'
(This is the second time I have tried to post this. I don't think the first
one got thru.)
How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
engagement?
--
Les
> (This is the second time I have tried to post this. I don't think the first
> one got thru.)
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war?
Very. While the Zero could usually outmanouver any other fighter the
Allies fielded at less than its full speed, it could not manouver as
well at high speeds. Combine that with its lesser performance at high
speeds, its lower lower flight ceiling, inferior diving and climbing
ability, mostly nonexistant radio and armor, and you have an aircraft
that most Allied fighters were itching to encounter.
> Could
> a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
> engagement?
Only if there was an ace pilot flying it. I have read one Japanese
account (from the book "Zero Fighter," IIRC) of a Japanese ace
fighting off seven F6F Hellcats around 1945. Note: given the nature
of aerial warfare, the actual numbers of fighters he fought is most
likely exaggerated, but the fact he came out from the encounter intact
indicated that the Zero could still fight to some extent.
--
John Lansford
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
>a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
>engagement?
Absolutely not. Saburo Sakai, who was one of Japan's greatest aces and
loved the Zero, was wounded over Guadalcanal in 1942. He eventually
returned to combat later in the war and considered the Zero totally
outclassed by the late model US fighters he and his pilots had to
face. The Zero was a great early war fighter, but it could not be
upgraded and still keep the characteristics that made it a great
plane.
It wasn't just the planes, however. The pilots flying those superior
US planes were veterans with lots of flight time behind them, while
the late war Japanese pilots were usually tyros coming right out of
the training room with a handful of hours in the air (if that).
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
--
Tero P. Mustalahti
"Fletcher O'" <kingti...@hotmail.com> writes:
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war?
Quite badly. The Zero was much slower than its adversaries and it
could not dive very fast either. It was also very vulnerable despite
some (but not much) added armor and self-sealing fuel tanks in the
later models.
> Could a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in
> a one-on-one engagement?
Only if the Mustang pilot tries a low speed dogfight mainly on the
horizontal plane. Since all American pilots had been taught not to do
that, I would not give the Zero very good chances. Of course if the
Zero pilots is an ace and the Mustang pilot a rookie, anything is
possible, but with roughly similar pilot skill the Zero does not have
much a chance.
Tero P. Mustalahti
--
Cub Driver
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
>a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
>engagement?
You can make a good argument that the Zero was outclassed even at the
beginning of the war. During the first year of the war, USN Wildcat
pilots fought the Zero to a virtual draw, despite the fact that many
of the Japanese pilots had been blooded in China, while none of the
Americans had had previous combat experience.
The Zero was a beautiful aircraft, with an astonishing range, highly
maneuverable at speeds under 300 mph, and flown by men who in the
early years were superbly trained, highly experienced, and for whom
death in the emperor's service was a duty and a privilege. So it swept
over most of the Allied air forces it encountered--though not the USN
carrier pilots, who were privileged (as the ground-bound air forces
elsewhere were not) to pick the time and place of their battles.
But it was flimsy, unarmored (both for the pilot and for the fuel
tanks), and its combination of two rifle-caliber machineguns with two
slow-firing cannon really wasn't as effective in fighter-to-fighter
combat as the Wildcat's four fifty-caliber machineguns, never mind the
heavier armament of later American fighters.
As for the late-model Zero vs. a P-51, much would depend on the pilot,
but if they were equally skilled and experienced, and blessed with
equal shares of luck, I doubt the Zero pilot would have stood a
chance.
(Note that the AVG Flying Tigers never met the Zero in combat. They
fought the more maneuverable but inferior Nakajima Hayabusa / Oscar,
which fared very poorly against obsolescent P-40s with two
fifty-caliber and four rifle-caliber machineguns.)
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: let...@danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://danford.net
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
--
Clark Wilkins
"Fletcher O'" <kingti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3vcm7$19os$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
>
Without bothering to look up the two planes for actual end of war
specifications, in a word - No. While the Zero was a nimble and well armed
aircraft, the P-51 (and virtually every other US fighter) had an armor,
horsepower, and speed advantage over it. The biggest failing of the Zero
was its powerplant, a low horsepower radial. This required the Japs to
reduce weight in order to maintain speed and the weight saving in the Zero
was in its armor. Because of the use of silk in Zero construction and the
US use of tracer ammunition, a Zero could be brought down in flames with as
few as three hits. OTOH, when the Zero fired back, US fighters were all
armored. That's a mismatch. You can think of the Zero, in ground terms, as
a "cardboard" tank.
One of the other disadvantages of the Zero was that the US had
captured one and flown it in order to determine its strengths and
weaknesses. US fighter pilots were then told which altitude was most
favorable for engaging the Zero and what manuevers it could not stay with.
A bit unfair, to be sure, but it was war.
The Japanese Army produced an armored version of the Zero, which I
believe was called the "Nate". This plane was so awfull it couldn't even
compete with the old Flying Tigers.
An interesting comparison can be made between the fighter aircraft of
Italy with those of Japan. Italy had almost an identical low horsepower
radial to the Zero and, therefore, faced the same problems. Instead of
opting for the "speed" solution of the Zero, the Italians opted for a
"maneuverability" solution with the CR.42 Falco - a facinating antique of an
airplane. Although considerably slower than the Zero, Allied fighters had
an extremely difficult time getting a Falco in their gunsights unless it was
parked on the ground. Italian pilots were known to live long and happy
lives, unlike their Japanese counterparts.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
>
>
>
> --
>
--
George Hardy
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
> a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
> engagement?
Not really a fair question. No fighter in production prior to the
start of WWII was competitive at the end. The one that came closest
was the Spitfire. But do not overlook the vast upgrades made along
the way. The P-47 also did well, but again, upgraded and used in
modified rolls, which makes it look better than it was at the end.
GFH
--
Chris Morton
> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
>a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
>engagement?
VERY badly outclassed as long as the Allied pilot didn't do something
stupid
like try to fight a lowspeed turning battle with one.
Many of the late war US and British fighters were something
approaching
50-100mph faster than the Zero. They could engage and disengage at
will. Also,
most '44-'45 vintage US fighters could survive the Zero's 20mm fire
better than
the Zero could survive their .50cal fire.
Smart P-51 pilots would just boom and zoom the Zeros, striking in a
dive and
climbing again for another go 'round. A MASTER pilot like Sakai or
Nishizawa
was still dangerous, but equally skilled matchups between Zeros and
Mustangs
were a bad deal for the Japanese unless the American played to the
Zero's
strengths. But even then, a late model P-38 could just about turn
with Zero
using differential throttle settings.
Add to this the generally abysmal quality control of late war Japanese
materiel
and attendant unreliability, and the Japanese were pretty much
screwed.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight
with 210lb.
rapists.
W. Lydecker
Bill Shatzer
On 9 Feb 2002, George Hardy wrote:
> Not really a fair question. No fighter in production prior to the
> start of WWII was competitive at the end.
I beg to differ - or, at least pick a nit.
The Macchi 200 was in production prior to September, 1939 and the same
basic design in its MC.202 and especially MC.205V versions was certainly
still a competive fighter aircraft in 1945.
Of course there was significant development of the original design over
that period but the basic airframe design was not significantly altered.
> The one that came closest was the Spitfire.
I'd think the Spit - in its Griffon-engined form - did more than come
close. While it lacked the range of the P-51 and the ruggedness of the
P-47, it certainly equalled both in simple aerial performance.
It certainly was capable for engaging late model Bf.109G-14s and
Fw.190A-8s on equal terms. And, if it was a bit lacking against Me.262s,
well, -every- allied fighter came up a bit short by that standard.
Cheers and all,
--
Paul Hacker
news:3c70e85e...@news.pacific.net.au...
> "It's the pilot, not the plane." - Yeager
Within reason, yes, it is the pilot. Still, I sure would not want to
race in the Indy 500 in a VW Beetle! The A6M series and Ki41 series only
advantage was low speed turning. Every other advantage went to the
American front line aircraft (P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U, F6F, F7F, and F8F).
If you are wondering the F7F Tigercat was shipped out to the Pacific in
45, same with the F8F Bearcat. Also, surprisingly, a squadron of P-80
Shooting Stars was in the Philippines in the last weeks of the war (so
was another squadron in England).
Paul
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
--
Paul Hacker
The reason is 'how you play the game'.
The A6M and Ki43 series planes had a top speed from 320 to 350 mph.
After 300 mph, the controls got so locked one could not turn the plane.
Also, at lower speed they could turn to the left very very well, but NOT
to the right. Also, dive speeds were limited to 450 mph or the wings
would rip off. Climb rates were from 2000 fpm to 2500 fpm. NO, or very
little armor. Low velocity 20mm cannon with very limited ammunition (A6M
series that is, the Ki43 always carried just two 12.7mm machineguns, .50
cal that is). Poor high altitude performance (either one).
Now compare to the P-38, P-47, and P-51.
The P-38 had a top speed anywhere from 380mph to 420mph (depending on
altitude). It had a climb rate around 3000 fpm. The P-38L-05-LO (end of
the war) had one of the highest roll rates of any fighter (which helps
determine turn rates). It could turn in either direction at low or high
speed. It had armor and self-sealing tanks. High firepower 12.7mm and
20mm cannon with more 20mm ammo (and more powerful 20mm) than the A6M
series. Also had higher altitude performance. Far far better range than
ANY fighter then in service.
The P-47N had a top speed from 380 to 450 mph (again depending on
altitude). Climb rate in the 2500 fpm range. Very good roll rate at any
speed. Best dive speed of any prop fighter at the end of the war (except
maybe the F6F Bearcat). Very good firepower (8 12.7mm machineguns, armor
and self-sealing tanks. Very good high altitude performance. Better
range than the A6M5.
The P-51K (last of the war) had top speeds around 370 to 450mph, Climb
rate at around 3000 fpm. Good roll rate at any speed. Very good dive
speed, around 550 mph). Good firepower with 6 12.7mm machineguns. Armor
and self-sealing tanks.
Now the game. This game, between A6M fighters and any one of the three
revolver around abilities of the planes. This is a game of 'dissimilar
aircraft' abilities. Presuming both pilots knew of each plans abilities,
the game could only go one way. The American aircraft had speed,
firepower, altitude, climbing, diving advantages. The ONLY advantage of
the A6M is turning at low speeds and lower altitudes (below 20,000
feet).
With this kind of situation, all the American planes have to do is keep
their speeds up around 300 mph or better. The A6M cannot turn at those
speeds. The A6M cannot dive, or roll, or climb. If the A6m slows down to
maneuver speed, the American planes will just take a shot, then break
off
contact, regain altitude, then dive back down with speeds of over 500
mph for another shot. They will just keep doing this, always refusing to
go into a low speed turning fight and there will be nothing the A6M can
do. Add to this, at the end of the war, all three American planes have
the range and staying ability to keep fighting until the A6M just runs
out of gas. Even if the A6M gets a shot, the armor and self-sealing
tanks will keep the damage to the minimum, but the A6M has no such
armor or protection for it's tanks.
What is more, the P-38L, with boosted controls and combat flaps, could
turn with the A6M5 all the way down to the P-38's stalling speed (which
was around 105 mph, while the A6M could do down to the 80s). So, the
P-38 could do a few turns with the A6M in the hope of getting a shot,
then when speeds got to around 300 mph, break off the attack and go into
a shallow, high speed climb (which would leave the A6M behind long
before it got a firing position).
And that is why the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other
in the Pacific. It had all the advantages.
So, the A6M and K143 were badly outclassed. And in real war, one fights
by finding the weakness of the enemy's aircraft and attacks those. The
Japanese could not exploit the Americans weakness as there was no way to
do that, as long as the American aircraft kept their speeds up, and
refused to dogfight at low speeds.
David Thornley
George Hardy <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
>"Fletcher O'" <kingti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a3vcm7$19os$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war? Could
>> a Zero fighter hope to hold its own against a P-51 Mustang in a one-on-one
>> engagement?
>
>Not really a fair question. No fighter in production prior to the
>start of WWII was competitive at the end.
This is irrelevant; the Zero was not in production prior to the start
of WWII. The first prototype flew just before the war started in
Europe, and none were in service before mid-1940. It was more or
less contemporary with the Fw 190, except that the Zero was rushed
into service.
The one that came closest
>was the Spitfire.
The Spitfire and Bf 109 were in front-line service when the European
war
broke out, and were in front-line service on V-E day. They had their
shortcomings but were still useful throughout the war.
But do not overlook the vast upgrades made along
>the way.
Which the Japanese did not manage to do to the Zero.
The P-47 also did well, but again, upgraded and used in
>modified rolls, which makes it look better than it was at the end.
>
It was a very good fighter at the end of the war, but of course
was designed and developed during the war, not before. While
there are continuities with the P-43, I wouldn't describe a
Thunderbolt as a souped-up Lancer.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion,
ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Tero P. Mustalahti
"Clark Wilkins" <clwi...@prodigy.net> writes:
> The Japanese Army produced an armored version of the Zero, which I
> believe was called the "Nate". This plane was so awfull it couldn't even
> compete with the old Flying Tigers.
The Nakajima Ki-27 Nate had nothing to do with the A6M Zero. It was an
older design with fixed landing gear and WW1-esque armament (2 x 7.7mm
MG). It had no armor either.
> An interesting comparison can be made between the fighter aircraft of
> Italy with those of Japan. Italy had almost an identical low horsepower
> radial to the Zero and, therefore, faced the same problems. Instead of
> opting for the "speed" solution of the Zero, the Italians opted for a
> "maneuverability" solution with the CR.42 Falco - a facinating antique of an
> airplane. Although considerably slower than the Zero, Allied fighters had
> an extremely difficult time getting a Falco in their gunsights unless it was
> parked on the ground. Italian pilots were known to live long and happy
> lives, unlike their Japanese counterparts.
The Cr.42 Falco was not a true contemporary of the A6M, since it was
an earlier design. The Fiat G.50 Freccia was a closer contemporary to
the A6M.
The Italians did not have good engines and their fighters reached
their full potential only with German Daimler-Benz
engines. Unfortunately for the Italians the DBs were not available in
significant numbers until 1943, when it was already too late. Only the
M.C.202 Folgore was built in significant numbers, since it was powered
by an Alfa-Romeo license-built copy of the DB601A. In general the
airframes of the Italian monoplane fighters were well designed and
more balanced than the maneuverability-obsessed Japanese pre-war
designs.
Tero P. Mustalahti
J.J. Cooper
by using the Zero's manuveurability, but it would be hard for even an ace to
shoot down a well flown Allied fighter...a P-51 or an F4U or F6F would have
advantages in speed, diving ability, turning ability at high speed and a
number of other factors, including better weapons...the only way a Zero
pilot could win was by the allied pilot making a mistake and getting into a
slow, circles fight or if the Zero could bounce the Allied plane by
surprise....
JJ Cooper
"Les" <pgm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a4184i$mf2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> "Fletcher O'" <kingti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a3vcm7$19os$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> > (This is the second time I have tried to post this. I don't think the
first
> > one got thru.)
>
> > How badly was the Zero fighter outclassed by the end of the war?
>
> Only if there was an ace pilot flying it. I have read one Japanese
> account (from the book "Zero Fighter," IIRC) of a Japanese ace
> fighting off seven F6F Hellcats around 1945. Note: given the nature
> of aerial warfare, the actual numbers of fighters he fought is most
> likely exaggerated, but the fact he came out from the encounter intact
> indicated that the Zero could still fight to some extent.
>
> --
>
--
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>So, the A6M and K143 were badly outclassed. And in real war, one fights
>by finding the weakness of the enemy's aircraft and attacks those. The
>Japanese could not exploit the Americans weakness as there was no way to
>do that, as long as the American aircraft kept their speeds up, and
>refused to dogfight at low speeds.
Are there any data about American fighter losses in air-to-air combat
in 1944 and 1945?
It would be interesting to see whether any American pilot got shot
down by Zero and how did it happen to him.
Drax
--
Zirpen
Zero and how did it happen to him.<
You can read an account, taken from his autobiography, by a USMC 20+ ace and
MOH recipient who wound up in a POW camp after being flamed by Zeros. see --
{http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington2.html} If you have access to google,
you can find six pages of links about his life, times and exploits. But
remember he was not known for accuracy. Yahoo also has a bunch. Masajiro"Mike"
Kawato claimed it was he who splashed the Yank ace.
--
Paul Hacker
news:a7o7o3$ro4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
Drax,
I have no doubt some where shot down (American that is). In fact, a good
place to start searching for such is at the websites of Groups that were
present till the end of the war in the Pacific.
I suggest: 9th Squadron 49th FG - www.flyingknights.net/
Also, the 475th FG - www.475thfghf.org/
The 13 AF (The Jungle Airforce)-www.enter.net/~rocketeer/13thmain.html
Another real good link with the list of all fighter American fighter
pilot kills is:
The Airforce Historical Research Agency - www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/
R A Leonard
USN & USMC fighter losses in to ALL Japanese Aircraft for 1944 were
216.
That breaks down by type as follows:
F4U or FG: 49
F6F: 155
FM: 12
During 1944 there was an average of 17 F4U/FG squadrons in action per
mon=
th,
with a high of 24 squadrons in December and a low of 9 in February.
Ther=
e
was an average of 17 F6F squadrons in action per month, with a high of
23
squadrons in October and a low of 8 in May. The average number of FM
squadrons active per month was 5, with a high of 15 in October and a
low =
of
none for May and August. Total average squadrons in action per month
was=
39,
with a high of 61 in October and a low of 20 in May. Together these
squadrons in action flew a total of 5252 action sorties resulting in
aeri=
al
combat. That averages to 438 aerial combat sorties per month or an
averag=
e of
11 aerial combat sorties per squadron per month. When compared to
actual
losses to opposing Japanese aircraft, that works out to about 1 air
comba=
t
loss for every 24 aerial combat sorties. Average aerial combat
sorties p=
er
type loss in 1944 for the F4U/FG, F6F, and FM were, respectively, 20,
25,=
and
32.
USN & USMC fighter losses in to ALL Japanese Aircraft for 1945 were
127.
That breaks down by type as follows:
F4U or FG: 46
F6F: 80
FM: 1
During 1945 there was an average of 28 F4U/FG squadrons in action per
mon=
th,
with a high of 35 squadrons in March and a low of 21 in January.
There w=
as
an average of 22 F6F squadrons in action per month, with a high of 28
squadrons in May and a low of 15 in January. The average number of FM
squadrons active per month was 11, with a high of 18 in January and
March=
and
a low of none for July. Total average squadrons in action per month
was =
62,
with a high of 75 in March and a low of 49 in August. In 1945 these
squadrons in action flew a total of 4391 action sorties resulting in
aeri=
al
combat. That averages to 366 aerial combat sorties per month or an
averag=
e of
9 aerial combat sorties per squadron per month. When compared to
actual
losses to opposing Japanese aircraft, that works out to about 1 air
comba=
t
loss for every 35 aerial combat sorties. Average aerial combat
sorties p=
er
type loss in 1944 for the F4U/FG, F6F, and FM were, respectively, 33,
31,=
and
362
For the total period 1 January 1944 to 15 August 1945, there was an
avera=
ge
of 21 F4U / FG squadrons in action per month. There was an average of
19=
F6F
squadrons in action per month. The average number of FM squadrons
activ=
e
per month was 8. Total average squadrons in action per month was 48.
Average aerial combat sorties per loss for 1944 and 1945 for the
F4U/FG, =
F6F,
and FM were respectively, 26, 27, and 58.
The 1944 - 1945 time period is interesting in terms of credited
claims. =
By
that time the use of gun cameras in USN fighters was commonplace, so
most
claims were readily verifiable and those non-verifiable were classed,
at
best, as probables or, more likely, damaged. Further the use of team
tac=
tics
in the US squadrons pretty much eliminated the =91lone wolf' type
claims.=
The
ACIO program provided personnel specifically to debrief pilots,
evaluate
claims on the face of all evidence (and often took a lot of
convincing) a=
nd
reporting results in a standardized format. At least one ACIO of whom
I =
am
aware would not credit any claim unless it was on camera.
Total Japanese fighter losses credited to USN/USMC fighters in 1944
were
2875. Broken down by type of US plane credited:
1944 - Shot down by F4U or FG: 477
1944 - Shot down by F6F: 2264
1944 - Shot down by FM: 134
The Japanese fighter losses for 1944 by type break down as:
A6M series ("Zeke", "Hamp", "Rufe") - 1876
Ki-43 ("Oscar") - 293
Ki-61 ("Tony") - 254
Ki-44 ("Tojo") - 189
Ki-27 ("Nate") - 36
J2M ("Jack") -10
Unidentified or Other - 217
Total Japanese fighter losses credited to USN/USMC fighters in 1945
were
2000. Broken down by type of US plane credited:
1945 - Shot down by F4U or FG: 659
1945 - Shot down by F6F: 247
1945 - Shot down by FM: 94
The Japanese fighter losses for 1945 by type break down as:
A6M series - 874
Ki-43- 229
Ki-61- 185
Ki-44 - 196
Ki-27- 109
Ki-84 ("Frank") - 144
J2M - 39
N1K series ("George") - 35
Unidentified or Other VF - 189
US Navy records also provide some interesting information from the
last y=
ear
of the war, 1 September 1944 to 15 August 1945, in terms of specific
US
fighter types versus specific Japanese fighter types.
Format is US VF Type vs Japanese VF Type - US Credits to Known US
Loss.
F6F vs A6M series - 1000 to 75
F6F vs Ki-43 - 396 to 26
F6F vs Ki-61 - 275 to 11
F6F vs Ki-44 - 283 to 9
F6F vs Ki-84 - 114 to 12
F6F vs J2M - 33 to 9
F6F vs N1K series - 28 to 0
F6F vs Ki-27 - 59 to 1
F6F vs Unknown SE VF Type - 90 to 6
TOTAL F6F vs Japanese VF Types - 2314 to 149
F4U or FG vs A6M series - 327 to 27
F4U or FG vs Ki-43 - 46 to 1
F4U or FG vs Ki-61 - 60 to 2
F4U or FG vs Ki-44 - 53 to 4
F4U or FG vs Ki-84 - 28 to 4
F4U or FG vs J2M - 9 to 3
F4U or FG vs N1K series - 7 to 0
F4U or FG vs Ki-27 - 82 to 1
F4U or FG vs Unknown SE VF Type - 3 to 0
TOTAL F4U or FG vs Japanese VF Types - 634 to 42
FM vs A6M series - 87 to 2
FM vs Ki-43 - 38 to 3
FM vs Ki-61 - 29 to 0
FM vs Ki-44 - 17 to 2
FM vs J2M - 1 to 0
FM vs Ki-27 - 1 to 0
FM vs Unknown SE VF Type - 10 to 0
TOTAL FM vs Japanese VF Types - 183 to 7
3 USN Types vs A6M series - 1414 to 104
3 USN Types vs Ki-43 - 480 to 30
3 USN Types vs Ki-61 - 364 to 13
3 USN Types vs Ki-44 - 353 to 15
3 USN Types vs Ki-84 - 142 to 16
3 USN Types vs J2M - 43 to 12
3 USN Types vs N1K series - 35 to 0
3 USN Types vs Ki-27 - 142 to 2
3 USN Types vs Unknown SE VF Type - 103 to 6
TOTAL 3 USN Types vs Japanese VF Types - 3131 to 198
Did I miss anything?
Regards,
Rich
Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2002 21:42:23 GMT, "Paul Hacker" <hac...@trimofran.org>
> wrote:
>
> >So, the A6M and K143 were badly outclassed. And in real war, one fight=
s
> >by finding the weakness of the enemy's aircraft and attacks those. The
> >Japanese could not exploit the Americans weakness as there was no way =
Cub Driver
>remember he was not known for accuracy. Yahoo also has a bunch. Masajiro"Mike"
>Kawato claimed it was he who splashed the Yank ace.
Neither was Kawato known for accuracy. See "The Man Who Didn't Shoot
Down Pappy Boyington" by Henry Sakaida, and a short version of the
controversey at http://www.danford.net/kawato.htm
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: let...@danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net
R A Leonard
Regarding Japanese fighter losses:
"1945 - Shot down by F6F: 247"
should read
"1945 - Shot down by F6F: 1,247"
sorry about the slip of the fingers.
Rich
Geoffrey Sinclair
>Are there any data about American fighter losses in air-to-air combat
>in 1944 and 1945?
>
>It would be interesting to see whether any American pilot got shot
>down by Zero and how did it happen to him.
The USAAF Statistical Digest is online. Try this link:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_index_table.html
try tables 158, and 160 to 165 inclusive.
The USAAF digest divides the war against Japan into 1) Pacific,
2) Far east Air Forces, 3) China/India/Burma, 4) Alaska and
5) 20th air force.
Total fighter losses put down to enemy fighters for the entire
war are 1) 33, 2) 583, 3) 295, 4) 14, 5) 6. Total 931.
The tables give the month by month breakdown of losses.
The Axis air forces in Europe, mainly the Luftwaffe, are
credited with 3,018 USAAF fighters.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
--
R A Leonard
Regarding Japanese fighter losses:
"1945 - Shot down by F6F: 247"
should read
"1945 - Shot down by F6F: 1,247"
sorry about the slip of the fingers.
Rich
--