Spitfire mk VB/Seafire vs Zero

[Soren]

Exceptional group of pilots ? Hardly Glider, some of them were very experienced, others not so much, and the pilots they were flying against were all well trained and flying capable a/c.

I understood that they only shot one Western aircraft down A Tempest and there is a question mark over the loss of a 152 at almost the same time

The Ta-152 shot down more than one Western Allied fighter, read Willy Reschke's book. Furthermore it has been confirmed that a P-51 was shot down by a Ta-152H, you can ask Erich about this.

And there is no question mark over the lost Ta-152, it crashed for no apparent reason as Reschke says, diving out of formation and into the woods before reaching the target area.

The Seafire vs Zero incident can't be compared at all and so is anything from spot on.

But moving on to the Zero vs Seafire subject:

Like JoeB said:
No, there was 1 known Seafire loss to Zeroes, in the *only* combat between the two where it's known the Japanese opponents were fighters and not kamikazes, on the last morning of the war August 15 1945, claiming 7 Zeroes. The Japanese losses per their accounts were only 1 Zero lost pilot bailed out WIA and one other pilot WIA but plane apparently not destroyed (see posts above). In all other cases the Seafires were defending carriers close in and it's likely most or all the fighter types they claimed were kamikazes.

Now 1 for 1 doesn't sound very onesided to me.

[Juha]

Soren
Quote: ” Basing superiority entirely on Kill/loss ratio is ignorant and useless and gets you nowhere nearer the truth. You need to take everything into account, such as the circumstances under which the said a/c had to operate, how well trained the pilots who flew it were, the performance of the a/c, pilots opinions from both sides, aerodynamics, how well trained were the opposing pilots, what a/c was it up against and how many ?? All of which was covered in our debate about the Ta-152H.”

Soren, from which units were the claimed Soviet victims of Ta-152 pilots? Did their toverits saw that they were shot down by FW-190s or Ta-152s? If you don’t know the answers you are comparing apples and oranges. You accept LW claims as true kills and LW losses were accepted as losses only if victim’s formation members saw that the victim was shot down by an enemy plane.

Juha

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

But moving on to the Zero vs Seafire subject:

Like JoeB said:
No, there was 1 known Seafire loss to Zeroes, in the *only* combat between the two where it's known the Japanese opponents were fighters and not kamikazes, on the last morning of the war August 15 1945, claiming 7 Zeroes. The Japanese losses per their accounts were only 1 Zero lost pilot bailed out WIA and one other pilot WIA but plane apparently not destroyed (see posts above). In all other cases the Seafires were defending carriers close in and it's likely most or all the fighter types they claimed were kamikazes.

Now 1 for 1 doesn't sound very onesided to me.

To achieve 1 for 1 loss ratio, the Zero must have become fireproof, be able to fly without a tail and land without a pilot who bailed out.
Not likely

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ta-152 shot down more than one Western Allied fighter, read Willy Reschke's book. Furthermore it has been confirmed that a P-51 was shot down by a Ta-152H, you can ask Erich about this.

And there is no question mark over the lost Ta-152, it crashed for no apparent reason as Reschke says, diving out of formation and into the woods before reaching the target area.

Soren - being a devil's advocate. If there was a known reason for the lost Ta 152, there would be 'no question mark", correct? If there was 'no apparent reason" wouldn't you say it raises a question?

I can think of several possibilities.

1.) Heart attack - not likely but possible death and loss of control
2.) Saw something at his six and evaded, losing control and crashing - possible and more probable than a heart attack.
3.) hit and killed by golden BB from the ground - not likely depending on location
4.) hit from behind by another fighter - possible, but hard to know. If this happened and the fighter in question was also shot down there would not have been a claim. What was the cloud cover like. Possible for boom and zoom?
5.) Sudden structural failure
6.) Loss of key control linkage like elevators
7.) Pilot tired and fell asleep.

Which one of these are you (or Willi) Certain of so that there is no "question mark".

As to Ta 152 inventory. Are all accounted for from each operational unit to which they were deployed? Are all the pilots for those ships accounted for when the war ended?

If so, where are the references? and what is the referenced disposition of each one?

If not, what is the explanation?

In short, claiming that no Ta 152's were lost in combat is interesting and serious researchers would test that claim by at least asking the above questions.

Simply stated - Willi R. is not likely to be in possession of any knowledge of the above questions unless 1.) every Ta 152 deployed was under his personal command, b.) he has the squadron/Group records, c.) there is verification from Focke Wulf/Tank that all deployed Ta 152s were in fact deployed to one squadron/Group and that the number in fact matches with that Group's records.

Does this documentation exist?

If not, how does one make a claim about Ta 152H loss/kill statistics other than - "it was a damn fine airplane"

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Glider

The Claims. The pilots combat reports describe
One Zero shared between two pilots as Blazing Nicely after its undercarrige dropped
One Zero fired at from 100 yards and the pilot bailed out
One Zero shot down by one pilot but no details
One Zero shared between 2 pilots but no details
One Zero shot down after his engine was on fire and his undercarrige dropped
One Zero shot down at 100 yards with hits on the engine and cockpit that burst into flames, the plane rolling overonto its back and plummeting into cloud
One Zero claimed after its wing root caught fire (given a probable)
One Zero shot down after its tail was shot off.

I am certainly not going to claim that all these claims turned into actuals but I do believe that the Japanese reports of its losses are on the low side.

And I'll reiterate, I won't absolutely state the single loss was a/c of Lt. T. Honma, 252nd AG.

But, vivid and specific descriptions of enemy a/c downed, believed to described separate enemy losses, just are not proof of actual *separate* enemy losses. That's seen again and again by anybody who has compared claims with loss records in WWII (or Korea, similar technology of combat). The kind of details you present are useful and interesting but also exist in almost all other cases, or at least did exist when the credits were awarded, even if since lost.

It seems likely Honma's and Yamada's a/c represent more than two of those claims, plausibly all 7, given furball combat with difficult initial situation and perceived numerical disadvantage, especially given no previous true fighter combat experience in those particular FAA units. Those are all common elements in cases of higher overclaims.

The 252nd AG flight reporting contact with British a/c consisted of 10 Zeroes, but there were F6F's around as well. Honma's personal account (in "Sky of August 15" by Hata) has the opponents as a mixture of 'Spitfires' and F6F's, in basically a single combat. Honma bailed out WIA plane on fire, downed by a Seafire by all accounts. Lt Cdr. M Hidaka crashlanded, cause or enemy a/c type not given. CPO N. Yoshinari was credited with a Seafire. Honma and WO K. Yoshida were both credited with TBF's (only 1 FAA Avenger was downed, no USN ones downed by fighters in the area/time).

The 302nd Air Group flight of which CPO S. Yamada was part consisted of 4 Raiden ('Jack') and 10 Zeroes. The only specific attribution to Seafires was Yamada's wounding, a/c not mentioned as destroyed; they attributed 4 a/c losses to F6F's, claiming 1 F6F.

Probably none of the Japanese fighters met near or over Japan that morning were kamikazes. The *previous* fighter type kill credits of Seafires were probably mostly or all kamikazes, in defensive ops near carriers, not those on August 15.

Also I still reiterate, high claims by one side, in general, do not constitute any proof that reported losses on the other side were 'low'. There are just too many cases involving too many air arms and units where the opposing loss reports are pretty airtight as to completeness of units involved (which again is true over Darwin, but not quite true here, I grant, though main issue here is F6F/Seafire overlapping combats, still 7 losses just to Seafires seems highly improbable), and just don't include loads of claims of the other side. Documented cases of specific records which seriously understate losses are just about non-existent, for anybody, for all the times that's suggested.

Joe

[Glider]

It would be nice to know if there were any gun camera films to help sort this out.

[Juha]

JoeB
thanks a lot for Your analyze on the 15 Aug 45 air combat. I always like your analytical messages and how your always try to find the truth by carefully studing info from both sides.

Juha

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Soren - being a devil's advocate. If there was a known reason for the lost Ta 152, there would be 'no question mark", correct? If there was 'no apparent reason" wouldn't you say it raises a question?

I can think of several possibilities.

1.) Heart attack - not likely but possible death and loss of control
2.) Saw something at his six and evaded, losing control and crashing - possible and more probable than a heart attack.
3.) hit and killed by golden BB from the ground - not likely depending on location
4.) hit from behind by another fighter - possible, but hard to know. If this happened and the fighter in question was also shot down there would not have been a claim. What was the cloud cover like. Possible for boom and zoom?
5.) Sudden structural failure
6.) Loss of key control linkage like elevators
7.) Pilot tired and fell asleep.

Which one of these are you (or Willi) Certain of so that there is no "question mark".

As to Ta 152 inventory. Are all accounted for from each operational unit to which they were deployed? Are all the pilots for those ships accounted for when the war ended?

If so, where are the references? and what is the referenced disposition of each one?

If not, what is the explanation?

In short, claiming that no Ta 152's were lost in combat is interesting and serious researchers would test that claim by at least asking the above questions.

Simply stated - Willi R. is not likely to be in possession of any knowledge of the above questions unless 1.) every Ta 152 deployed was under his personal command, b.) he has the squadron/Group records, c.) there is verification from Focke Wulf/Tank that all deployed Ta 152s were in fact deployed to one squadron/Group and that the number in fact matches with that Group's records.

Does this documentation exist?

If not, how does one make a claim about Ta 152H loss/kill statistics other than - "it was a damn fine airplane"

Bill,

The cause behind every other Ta-152 loss is known except that single one. And it absolutely couldn't have been caused by enemy action as both Willy and his wingman saw him just dive out of formation and into the woods, no tracers, smoke, enemy a/c or damage to Stattler's a/c was observed.

So that leaves only a few possible explanations, either he fell asleep, got a heart attack (rare yes, but when have you ever heard of this before besides this ??) or mechanical malfunction (Highly unlikely as he didnt respond).

[Strawn]

Why is it that every thread I visit to review aircraft performance seems to always end up with a reference to the Ta 152H?

[Soren]

Ask Juha, it was he who found the need to stray off topic.

[Juha]

Soren
read the tread, I don't bring the Ta-152 to this thread,

Juha

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Glider

It would be nice to know if there were any gun camera films to help sort this out.

It might help, but in my observation gun camera shots don't always sort things out, even when the actual pictures still exist and are known to correspond to a particular action. I have in mind right now 2-3 different sometimes published gc shots among 7 USAF F-94's credited to Soviet MiG-15's in Korea in the same combat. The clearest shot shows a Marine F9F, which were the actual opponents. There were no other opponents, and just 1 F9F was downed: extensive evidence in declassified records up to originally 'top secret' level. The shots were of the same plane, but you can't tell looking at them. Not fakes AFAIK, but inadvertent duplicate credits using gun camera. And while the Soviet policy seemed to require gc shots of kill credits, only 2-3 of the 7 official credits in that combat have known gc shots.

Also many surviving gc shots just show a plane in the aiming reticle of another, not its definite destruction (true of the clearest shot in the series mentioned above). As policy some AF's required image of a bail out or disintegration, but rigorous enforcement of such rules was another matter. Other AF's had a policy of allowing interpretation of non-definite gc evidence to award a kill, but the policy either way was only one variable, the practice could differ either way.

So, the fact that gc shots once existed for a combat, but we no longer have the images (vast majority of cases) doesn't help much IMO in evaluating a claim. There's no way to tell anymore what level of rigor was really used in assessing destruction and weeding out duplicates.

You need the other side's records to evaluate fighter combat IMO. If you can't get them or believe them, you just can't do it accurately, in general with some exceptions (eg. still existing clear images of single Japanese targets of single USN PB4Y's hitting the water or totally enveloped in flame).

Joe

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Juha

Soren
read the tread, I don't bring the Ta-152 to this thread,

Juha

It was actually claidemore, my apologies.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

The cause behind every other Ta-152 loss is known except that single one. And it absolutely couldn't have been caused by enemy action as both Willy and his wingman saw him just dive out of formation and into the woods, no tracers, smoke, enemy a/c or damage to Stattler's a/c was observed.

So that leaves only a few possible explanations, either he fell asleep, got a heart attack (rare yes, but when have you ever heard of this before besides this ??) or mechanical malfunction (Highly unlikely as he didnt respond).

I don't want to hijack the thread.. we can pick up later how any knows what the operational statistics and operational inventory was from beginning to war's end?