Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello!

Hi Nikademus,

"Paper superiority" is a propaganda term I'm not going to put up with. I concede you may have used it accidentally, but that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I disagree. "Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another. It isn't restricted to airplanes either. Its often done vs. pretty much anything, tanks for example. I come from a website that has seen some of the biggest flame fests based on paper-stat comparisons....with the arguments often going into outworldly situations that bear little resemblence to the RL situation. One of my personal favorites is the "Any 76mmm equipped Sherman can take care of any garden-variety Tiger tank....just look at the penetration stats!!!!!!"



Now you should be aware that "performance" has a well-defined meaning in an aviation context, describing technical aspects such as speed and climb.

Yes...thank you. I am well aware of what "preformance" means and that when i look at preformance stats in a book or a website that they are theoretical best stats...that will not always be present in RL depending on condition of plane etc etc. Shores made point to mention that in Fighters Over the Desert. That doesn't mean such stats arn't useful but they should not be taken litterally. An example would be max speed. A much abused stat. The way some people (not here) wield it, you'd think all WWII fighter planes tool around at max speed all the time.

I believe you are using it in its more general meaning here, which is roughly equivalent with "success".

No. I am using preformance as an estimate and then factoring it in to RL obsevations of air combat.

Now undoubtly success is not guaranteed if you have a significant performance (and firepower, and protection) superiority ... it's merely highly probable. The lack of success of the Spitfire V against the A6M2 is an anomaly, and you can't generalize from anomalies.

Superior preformance definately gives an edge. And yes, it is indeed no gurantee and lack of definitive success (i.e. a Turkey shoot) is not an anomoly, its common place. The anomoly is actually when a very large disperity exists when the two opponents are not seperated by a wide gulf. Such an anomoly occured over Malta in the four month period of 2/41 through 5/41 when 7/JG-26 operated from Sicily.


What kill-to-loss ratio do you require for applying the term "Turkey shoot"? Wouldn't make much sense to argue about something linguistically vague ...

For me personally...(someone else might coin a different stat), I would say first that a signifigant disperity starts at it's lowest level at above 3:1 ratio. A serious disperity would be roughly around 6:1. The F4U is alleged for example to have scored an amazing 11:1 ratio though its never been confirmed. Some sources use the rule of 2 and say maybe 6:1 ratio. If a more accurate ratio is 6:1 to use the example for a moment it would still not be soley due to the preformance stats of the Corsair but would be aided heavily by the fact that the quality of opposition faced was poor to very poor and the numerical disadvantages and the use of outdated tactics in some cases all contributed to such a slaughter as well.

That's where you have to be specific and present a hypothesis explaining how the out-classed A6M2 (flown by experienced IJN pilots) could prevail against the vastly superior Fw 190A-3 (flown by experienced Luftwaffe pilots). Truisms won't take us anywhere.

First off, I didn't say the A6M2 pilots would prevail. I said it wasn't out of the bounds of possibility that they might repeat their preformance against the Spitfires as happened in real life, or etch a draw like the 64th Sentai managed initially vs. "much superior" Spitfire VIII's. I have in this discussion actually given the nod to the FW-190A, especially the mid-service life blocks because the 190 was more adaptible to the changing environment and was overall a younger design. My difference with your accessment which appears to be based on a simple paper stat comparison followed by a transposing of one unique battle sitaution from West to East is that I do not assume a "Turkey Shoot" with FW pilots leasurly flying around BnZing their helpless opponents while reading the morning paper.

Thus I'd put forth a theoretical 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio. I think given the the fact that many RL comparisons between even aircraft of somewhat disparant paper preformances fell under 2:1 in tactical engagement (sometimes even 1:1 or 1.5:1) like when P-40's initially faced "obsolete" Ki-27's in Burm, or when Cr-42's faced "superior" preforming Hurricanes over Malta (and traded almost 1:1), i'm being generous to the FW pilots.

Not consistently ... the Ki-43 pilots fighting against the Flying Tiger's P-40 were losing on a regular basis, and the reason is that Claire Chennault drilled high-speed hit-and-run tactics into his men that worked very well against the slower, poorly protected Japanese aircraft. This reinforces my point that the poor success of the Spitfire is an anomaly since the superiority of the Spitfire V as a fighter over the P-40 is well established.

They were edged on a regular basis yes....not Turkey Shoot levels however and the AVG's most common opponent were Ki-27's not Ki-43's. The tactical situation also had much to do with it as well. The AVG fought only when the situation favored them and they were geographically positioned to be able to do so. After mid 42 range was also their friend. In fact the P40 flying AVG/51st FG did better than even "superior" preforming planes like the P-38, Spit VIII and P-51A for a time because of this. Despite similar properties, the Hurricanes were owned by the Ki-43's and for a period of time the Spit VIII's were stalemated despite a major paper superiority. P-38's and P-51 engagements were far more fleeting but for a period of time the ratio was competetive there as well. What turned the game around directly had nothing to do with paper stats....it was a change in tactics, ever increasng numbers and lack of support for the Japanese because Burma was considered a backwater theater.

Fighting defensively over Australia instead of France would not have lessened their ability to exploit the strenths of their aircraft (and the weaknesses of the enemies').

It shouldn't have lessened the Spitfire's ability either as displayed during the BoB. Yet it did.

I would not downplay Fighter Command's tactical flexibility or the experience of their fighter leaders and pilots - they had learned from their 1941 mistakes and had much improved by 1942. In 1942, JG 26 still claimed better than 6:1.

Not downplaying it. I've read up on it and discussed what i saw as a chronic malise with some friends i considered more knowledgable on the subject. Yes FC had some great leaders but like the US, they did not keep them all in the cockpits while the Germans tended to do so. FC also continued to greatly expand to preform these offensive missions and as such many green pilots were behind the weel. Such as also the case for the WDAF and contributed to their being often bested by fhigh flying 109s using Friei Jagd tactics.

They were about the only fighter group on the channel front, and they were having serious losses too, and using rookies to fill up their ranks. Fighter Command's worst hour was 1941, they had learned a lot by 1942.

Yes...in an attritional war all sides lose men and have to replace them with rookies. Doesn't change the fact that JG-26 remained an elite formation and they were later helped by flying defensively and having the tables turned badly on FC who know found themselves faced against a very well running air defense network that often expertly vectored the Luft fighters onto their fighter sweeps.

The Butler/Caldwell figures I have seen indicate that they claimed just above 5:1 in the 1940 and just above 6:1 in 1942. If you accept 3:1 in 1940 you should have no problems with the same figure in 1942 when the possiblities of verifying the claims were better due to much of the fighting taking place over friendly territory.

I question any claim ratio until I've read a source along the lines of a Shores, or Lundstrom that devotes serious postwar research to the campaign. JG 26 was not any less immune to overclaiming as another airgroup though some historically did better than others. 64th Sentai for example was usually fairly accurate while 50th Sentai's claiming was reliant on whether or not they succeeded in their mission. In the Desert Shores actually credits the Luft with fairly accurate claiming (though sill vulnerable to the classic conditions that produce overclaiming) though also documented the unfortunate incidents involving II/JG53 that led to many Luft claims being held in high suspicion.

As for 3:1 I have accepted that as a theoretical poss over Darwin using 190's with good pilots vs experienced Zero pilots. However....because of what often happened in RL and what *specifically* happened with superior Spits in India as well as Darwin...I'm not discounting the possibility that they might not do as well as that.
 
Hi Nikademus,

>"Paper superiority" is a common real life occurance that happens all the time in historical subjects that compare one weapons device to another.

Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?

I don't think you do. The rest is conclusions from facts, and these are either logical or they're not - we don't need a propaganda label to discuss that.

Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions.

If you think you need this kind of rhethoric device to impress the audience or to simply annoy me, I would consider that regrettable

As the term "paper something" can be found in about every second paragraph of the rest of your post, I'll refrain myself from answering until we have resolved this issue.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I'm gonna have to agree with HoHun here Nik, a performance advantage is a performance advantage.

And regarding the US 76mm equipped Shermans, well according both to the paper statistics real life these could NOT handle the Tiger at the promised ranges, the projectiles simply werent of sufficient quality and would shatter against the Tiger's armor even at point blank range. A big disappointment to the US tankers at the front.
 
Hi Nikademus,
1. Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?

2. Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions.
1. Assuming a paper comparison is truly accurate and representative, the question is exactly *what* degree of advantage does a particular speed or climb advantage actually confer? The answer, to the degree it can be found at all, can only be found in two sided documented fighter combat outcomes IMO. Even with all the extraneous factors which inevitably enter into that. And just like I didn't say the Zero outclassed the Spit V (though the Spit V very obviously didn't outclass the A6M2 Zero if it could only manage a 1: several ratio against it), I didn't say there was necessarily a definitive answer to which fighter was, inherently itself, better overall in any reasonably close match up.

2. But there's some reality to that terminology. The paper results *are* on paper, and actual quoted numbers of speeds of WWII a/c tend to vary considerably. Japanese ones, the real speeds of their fighters in standard favorable conditions, had a tendency to be higher than the official stats. Stats on captured planes were notoriously subject to inaccuracy for various reasons. And some planes coped with unfavorable conditions better than others, why is that not to their credit as planes?

And the actual combat results *are* actual. But even assuming it's 'actual' speed advantage, *what* conclusion can be drawn about the *quantitative* relationship between a speed advantage of given size and combat effectivness advantage, other than by real combat results? How do you know other more subtle plane factors didn't have equal importance to relatively small speed advantages?, and how would find out other than by testing the planes in real combat against one another?

A few misc. comments of various recent posts:
-F4F design and USN gunnery training: those were not independent factors, the F4F's low nose made high deflection tracking much more practical.
-Hurricane v Zero and Type 1: again, for the several-th time on two threads, the conclusion about Hurricane's effectiveness is simply not drawn from the first battle over Ceylon (or even the second one where the Hurricanes were not surprised). The full stats are given on the other thread, numerous combats v Type 1 and Zero, *all* of which went against the Hurricane, even v. the Type 97 the Hurricane's ratio was <1, though much less bad than against Zero and Type 1, as would be expected.
-Spitfire and Hurricane v the Germans up to '43: some of those results make Spit V v Zero seem slightly less an 'anomaly'. And the poor fighter-fighter exchange ratio of RAF-FC over France in '41 (even pre Fw190) v less poor in BoB seems to undercut the idea that the defensive fighter was at a disadvantage; that frankly seems to me an expedient argument to explain the 'anomaly' of Spit at Darwin, that doesn't jibe with a lot of other results in WWII. The sweeping or escorting fighter pilot's need for a sharper eye on the fuel gauge was recognized as a disadvantage. And a longer legged plane on an offensive mission to reduce that worry was recognized as an advantage, *of the plane*.
-F4U 11:1 ratio: I don't see any validity in a fixed ratio to discount claims, 2 or any other single number, it varied too much. Per Gamble's "Black Sheep" the claims accuracy ratio appeared to be around 40% for F4U units in Boyington's time in the Solomons (Spits at Darwin in 30's% though considerably worse considering only claims against Japanese fighters, and the F4U claims at that time were mainly v fighters). But those Marine units were not claiming close to 11:1, that average includes large scale F4U air combat in 1945 including v Kamikazes. F4U's had an advantage over JNAF fighters at the time of the Spit Darwin campaign, but not a huge one.

Joe
 
Joe,
What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?
To clarify what I said about 'experienced Zero units' remember the unit at Darwin that went ~25:4 against Spitfire V's, the 202nd Air Group, was the redesignated 3rd Air Group of 1941-42, which cut a pretty wide swath through Allied fighter opposition that year starting with raids on the Philippines through to Dutch East Indies campaign and then attacks from Timor on Darwin which was defended by the 49th FG (P-40's) in spring and summer '42. Some of the 3rd's pilots were transferred out but as a whole it didn't undergo grinding down in the Guadalcanal or New Guinea campaigns.

What was the effect there or in general of such *successful* experience on a fighter unit, I think it's a book length topic :) but my narrower point is I don't know of many cases where Allied fighters made a simple shift from 'turning with them' to 'hit and run' against the same Japanese units and saw a dramatic turnaround in results right away. So I question the whole idea of black and white statements like 'it was tactics' that tend to imply the possiblity of such radical shifts, or one sided victories by 'outclassed' fighters by simple 'tactics'.

When people compare success of Japanese fighters units early in the war to lack of success later on in terms of tactics, they aren't usually comparing the same J units in same overall situation in closely spaced times. They are including indirect effects of more competitive Allied fighter units over time, eg. the Japanese system as a whole couldn't sustain significant losses and expand greatly (which the Allied forces were doing) so both its quality *and* numerical positions tended to deteriorate as the war went on. Tactics factored in there indirectly, but I don't see the evidence that simple switches in tactics could produce big changes right away.

Back to 3rd/202nd they had at least one quite bad day against the 49th FG after it adopted high speed tactics, August 23, 1942 when they lost 5 to 1 P-40. But the 49th claimed success in other cases where the IJN accounts don't support it. Situationally aware pilots (in planes with excellent cockpit visibility, another strength of the Zero) with an advantage in 'angles' combat would force 'energy' fighters into high deflection shots most WWII pilots couldn't make, though they often honestly believed they had made them. But occasionally even the best would be caught from behind by such tactics, leading to attrition, and if the pilot replacement system was not strong, eventually inferior pilots. But it wouldn't necessarily succeed right away.

But also, the lack of any real bad days for the 202nd in the '43 campaign against Darwin, even after the Spits claimed to be trying to use energy tactics, suggests that unit with its cohesiveness from 42 to 43 perhaps adapted itself to such tactics, at least to some degree. This is a different situation than comparing the capabilities of 1942 Zero units in the Solomons ground down in equal combat with F4F's then replaced with mainly new units in 1943, or even more so the still fairly capable 1943 IJN fighter units in the Solomons ground down to nothing v their 1944 successors.

Joe
 
Hello,

Do you mean to question the statement that the Spitfire V enjoys real performance superiority over the A6M2, and the statement that the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-5 enjoys a real performance superiority over both of them?

Which side did I say would most likely win this theoretical matchup over Darwin?


Calling them "paper superiority" is an attempt to disqualify my conclusions as inherently flawed "paper" conclusions while trying to establish your as valuable "real-life" conclusions.

This is the 2nd time you've accused me of trying to "disqualify" your viewpoint and/or the preformance data you place so much weight on. What I have been "attempting" to do is to combine two different types of information (preformance data (real and/or theoretical best) and junxtaposition it against real life combat situations, circumstances and variables and come to an adequate and careful prediction of the resolution. You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but ironically, my interperation of the various data leads me to essentially the same conclusion as yours in terms of the victor. Where we differ is in judging the degree of victory plus I am also acknowledging that an alternate outcome is possible.


If you think you need this kind of rhethoric device to impress the audience or to simply annoy me, I would consider that regrettable

I would consider it regrettable if you felt the need to continue commenting on my alleged motivations as a device to cast me in less than complimentary tones. I don't find them relevent to the discussion nor are they accurate.
 
I'm gonna have to agree with HoHun here Nik, a performance advantage is a performance advantage.

Hi Soren,

Yes...a preformance advantage is a preformance advantage. In case my use of the term "paper stats/superiority etc is being misinterpreted, let me clarify what i mean by it; When I use this term, I am not suggesting that the device in question couldn't preform up to those specs assuming the machine is in good servicability. Perhaps it would be less offensive to some parties if i labeled it simply "preformance stats". either way its pretty much the same thing to me.

Point I was trying to make is that a preformance edge is not the be-all/end-all of things in air combat. If it were then the Spit V's at Darwin should have won and won big. They didn't. Preformance is a component of air combat...a very important one, but still a component in an overall equation.

And regarding the US 76mm equipped Shermans, well according both to the paper statistics real life these could NOT handle the Tiger at the promised ranges, the projectiles simply werent of sufficient quality and would shatter against the Tiger's armor even at point blank range. A big disappointment to the US tankers at the front

Actually the paper statistics from ballistic tests suggested a good chance of penetration of a Tiger's frontal glasis at standard battle ranges. Because of this, several memorable threads have been spawned where certain persons have made the claim i cited as an example and based it on the "preformance data" You and I know that in the field this was not the case but that didn't stop these heated arguments and stats from being thrown around. I can send you the link to the last big one. Tons of fun to read. :p
 
Hi Nikademus,

>You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but ironically, my interperation of the various data leads me to essentially the same conclusion as yours in terms of the victor.

I certainly appreciate that.

Still, I'm not happy with the terms "paper superiority", "... performance" etc. These terms are used in no wartime report or tactical study I have ever seen, and cannot be found in Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat" either (the fighter pilot's "bible", if you recognize the title).

So "paper performance" at best is unprofessional jargon, and I still believe it was originally coined as rhethoric device, building on the suggestive context of "paper ..." to downplay the validity of the main term "performance".

I'm glad to hear you intended to use the term as a neutral category, but the problem is that the suggestive nature of the term still invites misunderstandings. As it's definitely not professional terminology, maybe you could simply drop the "paper ..." part?

Apart from that one issue, I consider your arguments well-researched and logical even where I disagree with them, and since you mentioned it, I'd agree that a different outcome to any particular predicted one is always possible, though I would add that it might be unlikely. (And due to the law of great numbers, in a major campaign the more likely result is what will show as the final score).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Joeb,

>>What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?

>What was the effect there or in general of such *successful* experience on a fighter unit, I think it's a book length topic :)

It's a one-liner: Experience enables a fighter pilot to determine and implement better tactics.

So if you attribute the result of the Spitfire V vs. A6M2 engagements to the greater experience of the Zero pilots, you actually recognize tactics the decisive factor.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Nikademus,

>Actually the paper statistics from ballistic tests suggested a good chance of penetration of a Tiger's frontal glasis at standard battle ranges.

Hm, I'm not a tank expert, but could it be that this consideration didn't take into account that the Tiger crews were trained to turn their tank into an oblique angle to the enemy to make it harder to penetrate the armour? I have skimmed the "Tigerfibel", and there was a "time of the clock" diagram actually outlined areas of vulnerability against the Sherman - along with instructions how to avoid these vulnerabilities in battle.

If that was indeed the reason for overestimating the Sherman's effectiveness, it would be due to an incomplete picture of combat tactics ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Nikademus,

I'm glad to hear you intended to use the term as a neutral category, but the problem is that the suggestive nature of the term still invites misunderstandings. As it's definitely not professional terminology, maybe you could simply drop the "paper ..." part?

How about "Der Stats...."

or is that...."Die Stats......"Das Stats"... I never got the 3 genders for the word "The" in Deutch. :|

Apart from that one issue, I consider your arguments well-researched and logical even where I disagree with them, and since you mentioned it, I'd agree that a different outcome to any particular predicted one is always possible, though I would add that it might be unlikely. (And due to the law of great numbers, in a major campaign the more likely result is what will show as the final score).

thx. lol....perhaps on the unlikely part. Then again things like what Muncheberg's Staffel did happen and throw a person's expectations out the window! Thats what makes what if's fun i guess. :D
 
Hi Nikademus,

Hm, I'm not a tank expert, but could it be that this consideration didn't take into account that the Tiger crews were trained to turn their tank into an oblique angle to the enemy to make it harder to penetrate the armour? I have skimmed the "Tigerfibel", and there was a "time of the clock" diagram actually outlined areas of vulnerability against the Sherman - along with instructions how to avoid these vulnerabilities in battle.

If one were an objective minded person, and truely wanted to analyse fairly the situation...yes one would definatley want to take in the possibility of oblique angles....as well as the far thicker frontal turret armor of the tiger....the fact that in the ballistic "tests" the armor penetration achieved was close to the thickness level of the target (showing how close the margin is) That person might also factor in that the testing methodology specified the pen figures represented 50% chance pen at that thickness level at range indicated.......and lastly of course shatter gap and the quality issue of the US/UK projectiles vs. their German equivilents. After that..add in all the real life commentary.

Alas.....the person who's quote i lifted regarding 76mm armed Shermans taking out any "Garden Variety Tiger" is not one who is interested in any of those things. He and his brood are interested in winning arguments along lines of national contention. So instead of the above....you get blanket statements like 76mm Shermans taking out Tigers frontally with ease...all based on simple ballistic test data stripped out of a website or two.....despite a preponderance of disputing evidence...technical as well as ancedotal....like.....(drum roll)

ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet

P-47N -- Max airspeed 467 mph at 32,500 feet.
P-47C -- Max airspeed 433 mph at 30,000 feet.

What part of these stats do you not comprehend? As high-altitude fighter go, the P-47, even the P-47C, could beat the stuffing out of ANY variant of the ME-109 at altitudes above about 28,000 feet.

From the 109K thread. Same person who posted the above has posted the little gems about Shermans vs. Tigers. Its a fun board when these people come around. (not).

If that was indeed the reason for overestimating the Sherman's effectiveness, it would be due to an incomplete picture of combat tactics ...

You are so very correct. I might only add...."deliberately" incomplete picture to it. Generalizations are their friends.

anyway, for those with strong stomach's here's a link to the latest blow up that occured at the beginning of this year. Its not nice but educational on various Internet debating strategies used.

RE: What is your favorite WWII tank?
 
Hi Joe,

>So we must question a *highly simplistic* tactics explanation, as if some 'tactics button' could be pushed against experienced Zero units and totally reverse outcomes instantly.

What, in your opinion, is the benefit of "experience" in combat?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Multiple values.
1. Innate awareness of the relative strengths of your own a/c and they ones you are liable to encounter - leading to better situational awareness, particularly if caught unawares on an initial attack (that failed) from an unseen opponent.

For example, Me 109 pilots that had little relative 'experience' against a P-47 or a Mustang might tend to dive away when bounced - fatally. A lot of Eastern front LW pilots that moved from Ost to LuftReich died performing a manuever that worked with Spits and Yaks.

2. Stick and Rudder skills - take the same talent and the one that flys a lot in that fighter becomes a part of the airplane he flys. He doesn't 'think/then do" - he reacts instinctively and faster and more violently (and most correctly, even if not enough eventually)- reducing his moment of vulnerability to minimum (if he has the 'experience' noted above.

Bomber pilots on both sides that converted to fighters had less success based on 'flight time' because the skills he learned were smooth co-ordinated, low bank turns made in a heavily loaded bomber. My father personally interviewed most of the bomber pilots volunteering for 2nd SF and gave check rides to most because there were too many fatal accidents going from B-24 to AT-6 to Mustang.

3. Constant alertness and situational awareness. New guy is focused on his leader's wingtip and gets both killed because he's not thinking about the next cloud bank or the Cirrus layer above him, (or whatever). Experienced guy thinking and looking where he is vulnerable.

To name a few benefits to experience...

When I think of PTO combat film taken from Mustangs, F6F, P-38, P-40 and F4F, there is one common theme if the first pass isn't a kill - the zero is pulling G's, tip streams heavy and he disappears either in a tight chandelle or steep banking turn. I haven't seen the Spit film (not too much of it) of Zeros but doubt a significant difference. The Zero was exceptional below 275 in a manuevering fight in which the opponent chose to slow down.

So, in my Opinion, the primary difference in Success (not performance) was skill (and growing experience) and tactics... and I would say the same for Mustang and Thunderbolt vs LW in ETO. The various models (ETO) traded 'slight' performance edges but at the end of the day it was pilot skill and experience (in aggragate) that won out.

This is only common thread for Zero slaughtering Buffs but Finns fighting it quite well - and Zeros hammering Spitfire while Spit holds it's own against Messerschmidt, and Mustangs slaughtering Me 109s and Fw 190s while the P-38 struggles to hold its own - is pilot skills, experience and tactics.

Regards,
 
Hi Nikademus,

>He and his brood are interested in winning arguments along lines of national contention.

I think I know that kind of poster, too - if one contributes to internet forums regularly, one is going to run into the "gottawins" sooner or later, inevitably :(

It's much more interesting (and fun) to discuss history with people who are willing to look at a situation from different angles, even if we might still keep disagreeing in the end - as we just did :)

You're right about invalid generalizations - often a look at the specific circumstances would lead to quite different conclusions. Ironically, there is also the complementary trick of selecting one specific example that fits into the desired picture, and pretending it's typical - I'm sure it would be possible to find a case where some standard Shermans really made short work of an equal number of Tigers, to stay with our example ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Multiple values.
1. Innate awareness of the relative strengths of your own a/c and they ones you are liable to encounter - leading to better situational awareness, particularly if caught unawares on an initial attack (that failed) from an unseen opponent.

For example, Me 109 pilots that had little relative 'experience' against a P-47 or a Mustang might tend to dive away when bounced - fatally. A lot of Eastern front LW pilots that moved from Ost to LuftReich died performing a manuever that worked with Spits and Yaks.

2. Stick and Rudder skills - take the same talent and the one that flys a lot in that fighter becomes a part of the airplane he flys. He doesn't 'think/then do" - he reacts instinctively and faster and more violently (and most correctly, even if not enough eventually)- reducing his moment of vulnerability to minimum (if he has the 'experience' noted above.

Bomber pilots on both sides that converted to fighters had less success based on 'flight time' because the skills he learned were smooth co-ordinated, low bank turns made in a heavily loaded bomber. My father personally interviewed most of the bomber pilots volunteering for 2nd SF and gave check rides to most because there were too many fatal accidents going from B-24 to AT-6 to Mustang.

3. Constant alertness and situational awareness. New guy is focused on his leader's wingtip and gets both killed because he's not thinking about the next cloud bank or the Cirrus layer above him, (or whatever). Experienced guy thinking and looking where he is vulnerable.

To name a few benefits to experience...

When I think of PTO combat film taken from Mustangs, F6F, P-38, P-40 and F4F, there is one common theme if the first pass isn't a kill - the zero is pulling G's, tip streams heavy and he disappears either in a tight chandelle or steep banking turn. I haven't seen the Spit film (not too much of it) of Zeros but doubt a significant difference. The Zero was exceptional below 275 in a manuevering fight in which the opponent chose to slow down.

So, in my Opinion, the primary difference in Success (not performance) was skill (and growing experience) and tactics... and I would say the same for Mustang and Thunderbolt vs LW in ETO. The various models (ETO) traded 'slight' performance edges but at the end of the day it was pilot skill and experience (in aggragate) that won out.

This is only common thread for Zero slaughtering Buffs but Finns fighting it quite well - and Zeros hammering Spitfire while Spit holds it's own against Messerschmidt, and Mustangs slaughtering Me 109s and Fw 190s while the P-38 struggles to hold its own - is pilot skills, experience and tactics.

Regards,

Excellent Post, Bill!

I would expand on that experience leading to better Situational Awareness. Experience calms the nerves and allows the individual to focus more clearly without becoming fixated. He is better equipped to channel stress into "good stress" that assist's him in survival. Experience has allowed him to test the waters and develop coping skills for that stress.

It is not uncommon for a guy to never see the enemy or get fleeting snapshots of them in his first firefight or dogfight because he has not developed the coping skills for the stress. I great example is Eric Hartmann's first combat sortie. He is trying so hard to concentrate on so many things at once that he concentrates on nothing. This only increases his stress until panic sets in or he has to concentrate on controlling himself. Now he is introverted when he needs to be extroverted. He falls back to the simple mechanic tasks he was trained on but lacks the capacity to put it all together outside of the very moment of what is directly in front of him.

Didn't the 8th have a saying that went something like, "fly five and stay alive"?

It's much more interesting (and fun) to discuss history with people who are willing to look at a situation from different angles, even if we might still keep disagreeing in the end - as we just did

It is nice to discuss things without cultural prejudice or some hidden agenda.

All the best,

Crumpp
 
Timing and situational awareness are noting but some of the most, if not, THE most important combat attributes out there. The tiniest burst of fire at the right moment can really knock a sucker out. Many of WWII's kills were snapshot-quick.

Even though propaganda has pretty much dwindled my image of the A6M (which I respect, but despise in video games dude to peoples' misuse of the plane). It seems like a rat in the eyes here in Canada. But really some pilots in it were great! Theoretically, an A6M could continuously dodge a Hellcat's attacks over and over again IF that Zeke pilot sees the Hellcat first. After that, it's up to the Hellcat to just give up... he's wasting fuel.
 
This is off topic but I have just started reading that tank thread Nikademus posted and I have to say I couldn't continue. I hope that someone points out that the M4A8 did not match the T-34/85 in Korea, as all the T-34s destroyed in a Shermans presence were destroyed by bazookas.
 
In the end of the day the Spitfire was faster and had a more unique turning arc, whereas the zero was far nimbler. However, the Spitfire if flown by a veteran pilot would likely beat a veteran zero pilot as it was far more of a precision machine. That said that would make the zero better all round than a MK I or II. That said, later versions of the spitfire (V onward) were far superior to later versions of the Zero.
 
In the end of the day the Spitfire was faster and had a more unique turning arc, whereas the zero was far nimbler. However, the Spitfire if flown by a veteran pilot would likely beat a veteran zero pilot as it was far more of a precision machine. That said that would make the zero better all round than a MK I or II. That said, later versions of the spitfire (V onward) were far superior to later versions of the Zero.

Do you realize that no one has responded to this thread in 9 years?!?
 
The flight reports I have read on the Fw 190 suggest to me it might not have done very well against a well-flown Zero.

It had good performance, but also had a viscious stall characteristic that was manifested as zero stall warning. When it let go it just snapped if uncordinated. That being said, they did well against the Western Allies. In the Pacific, where the enemy was flying a much more maneuverable plane than nornal western opponents, the "green" Fw 190 pilot (as in "new to Zeros") might react as he did in Europe and try to turn with the Zero, If he did that and hit the stall, especially at low altitudes, he might not get away with it. Also, he might get a nasty surprise when a Zero did a TIGHT loop and was on his tail, even in a climb.

I have tried to make the point several times in here that real world performance is NOT right at the upper end of the quoted best parameter value. First, you don't usually demand the absolute most from your engine if you are in a single-engine plane, several hunded miles away from home, and second, the quoted numbers are for a new plane, at factory weight, with a new prop, being turned by a relatively new engine. Real-world fighters had nicked props, worn finishes, some "hangar rash" in the form of dents and damage, and were not perfectly tuned or flown right to the edge. They did WELL, but probably not quite up to spec, espcically in the tropics, with outdoor maintenance in coral dust. I'd figure about a 5 - 10% frop in performance for an average fighter after a few months in the pacific ... maybe slightly more, maybe not. I'd bet the guys, that is, the guys in combat at the time, pretty much KNEW what they were dealing with, performance-wise, on both sides. As mentioned above, teh Zero also had cannons. The Fw 190 might not seem as strong if hit with a few connon rounds! But, then again, it might hold up fine. I couldn't say, for sure.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back