Spitfire mk VB/Seafire vs Zero

[parsifal]

I have always believed that the two Japanese mainstays, the Zero, and the oscar, were the dogfighters par excellance. Even if there is some ultra specialized situation that a spit might out-turn the zero (which I seriously doubt anyway), by far the better option is to dive and roll. We all know that the lightweight zeroes and Oscars just cannot compete in those areas, so why risk a quaestionable turning manouvre against them

[HoHun]

Hi Parsifal,

>maybe there is some truth to the claim that the spit could out-turn the Zero in certain low speed situations???? I am not so sure now...

Actually, if you look at the graph you'll see that the Seafire reaches the same sustained turn rate as the A6M only at a higher speed, meaning that its turn will have a greater radius. However, in a real turning fight the speed would tend to decay rather quickly, and the planes would typically fly at the lowest possible speed - and that's where the Seafire can't match the turn rate of the A6M because it reaches the stall boundary.

And there is another thing to consider - the fuel fraction of both types is quite different, with the A6M carrying relatively (and probably absolutely, too) more fuel than the Seafire. If you'd calculate the same set of graphs for a situation where both fighters have used 50% of their fuel, the A6M would fly at a lower percentage of its take-off weight than the Seafire, and that wold improve its turn rate markedly.

The question really is what you'd like to consider a typical encounter profile - as long as the A6M is flying offensive operations at long range, the "50% fuel for both" case is probably not so far off.

By the way, I suspect there might be one Spitfire that outturns even the low-altitude optimized Seafire LIIc, and that's the Spitfire V when boosted to +25 lbs/sqin

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>Heard the same thing - it had a split butterfly flap that enabled it to turn on a dime.

Do you know more about this butterfly flaps? I've read that they could be deployed very quickly by pushing a switch on the control column, and also that they could be deployed asymmatrically, but I'm not sure that this can be correct - I'm aware of no other WW2 fighter featuring anything similar.

I figure that with the Ki-43 rebuilds done by Tischler's company, there should be enough hard information on the type to know the system's workings, if we could somehow tap this source ... :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Micdrow]

Some of you may find this link interesting.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/fli...eros-9133.html (Spitfire vs different models of zeros)

[parsifal]

Hi Micdrow

Have read the article, and it appears to conclusively solve the issue. Thanks very much for taking the time to send me the link. Excellent research btw

As you probably are aware, RAAF experience with the Spit against the Zeke in the darwin area was quite mixed. I have attached an extract from one of my books (Parnell & Lynch, Australian Air force Since 1911, JW Books 1976). Its not a primary source, and has errors, but it tends to corroborate what you say. One raid seems to indicate the loss of eight spits, to what I later found, tentatively, to be the loss of just 3 Zekes/Haps. Another dogfight later that month (May), saw the loss of three Zekes to just one Spit, but I have not researched the Zeke losses as thoroughly for this engagement, so they may just be claimed losses, and not confirmed losses.

I believe the RAFF misused its Spits at this time, trying to dogfight the Spits against the zekes.This i also believe was due to the best employment of Spits in Europe against the LW was to aerobat the Spit against its opponents. The pilots flying the Spits at this time over Darwin were led by officers who had had experience over Europe. IMO they were applying the wrong lessons to the combats that they now found themselves in. The document you have found is dated 29 May,, a few weeks after the disasters earlier in the month (and before that as well). Perhaps the report was commissioned to drive the point home to the Darwin Wing....dont dogfight with Zekes....seems logical at any rate.

[Micdrow]

Your welcome parsifal and a very interesting read, thanks

Like you I tend to beleive that the RAAF used the wrong doctrine when first fighting the Japanese. As you said they where lead by ETO theater doctrines and not pacific. Aircraft where totally different including conditions. Its been awhile since I researched pacific theater though when I did I found that finding exact numbers of losses on the Japanese side seemed very hard to find.

Part of this was due to the construction of the zero. How many damaged zero's never made it back due to combat damage will probably never be known for sure.

I should go back through the Australian Archives. They did a lot of fighting with the Oscars also but I don't remember seeing any info about them there. Might be worth a search again of the Archives.

[parsifal]

Australian report frequently appear to refer to what were actually Oscars, as zeroes. Both A/C have similar profiles at a distance. The units in my page extract identify the japanese formation deplyed in the Darwin, which suggests that at least a portion of A/C identified as "Zekes" in the combat repports are more than likley "Oscars".

[Micdrow]

You may find this report of interest also parsifal, link below.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...win-10736.html

[HoHun]

Hi again,

>And there is another thing to consider - the fuel fraction of both types is quite different, with the A6M carrying relatively (and probably absolutely, too) more fuel than the Seafire.

Here is another graph on relative turn performance.

I have added a graph for the A6M2 at what I consider an equivalent fuel weight as for a fully-fueled Spitfire V. Gain: about 1.5 degrees per second.

Additionally, I have added a graph for a fully tropicalized Spitfire Vb running at +9 lbs/sqin, which appears to have been typical at least early on.

You can see that the difference in sustained turn between the two types at equivalent fuel load is 6 degrees per second. That means the A6M2 can make good 180 degrees in just 30 s ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by parsifal

One raid seems to indicate the loss of eight spits, to what I later found, tentatively, to be the loss of just 3 Zekes/Haps. Another dogfight later that month (May), saw the loss of three Zekes to just one Spit, but I have not researched the Zeke losses as thoroughly for this engagement, so they may just be claimed losses, and not confirmed losses.

Those would be claims, reported Japanese fighter losses were only 4 Zeroes and one Army Type 1 (Oscar) in the whole 1943 Darwin campaign, March-September 1943. Those losses, as given in Senshi Sosho ('War History Series' the Japanese official history), have also appeared in print in a number of non-Japanese books. One example is "Spitfire V Aces" by Alfred Price in the Osprey series, and another recent excellent book on all air ops over and on the peripheries of Australia, with full two sided accounts, is "Soleil Levant sur L'Australie" by Bernard Baeza. Also the English translation of "Japanese Naval Fighter Unit and Aces of WWII" and the abridged English version of "Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units and Their Aces", both by Hata and Izawa, give the names of pilots lost in that campaign.

The following is a compact chronology per Price, but the Japanese losses are the same in other references, and pilot names are from Hata/Izawa except as noted. Price has a couple of dates wrong too that I noticed. The Japanese fighter opponents were Zeroes of the 202nd Air Group, in all except one combat, as noted, and it's only incidents that included Japanese figthters:
March 2 '43: Spits claim 2 Zeroes and a 'Kate' (none present) for no loss; Japanese claim 3 P-39's and Buffaloes (none of either type present!) for no loss.
March 15: Spits claim total 9 for 4 Spits lost; Japanese claim 8 defending fighters for 1 Zero lost (PO2c Seiji Tajiri) and 8 'Betty's' damaged.
May 2: Spits claim total 7 for 5 Spits lost or probably lost to enemy action out of 14 total Spit losses; Japanese claim 21 without loss, though 7 each Betty's and Zeroes were damaged.
May 10: Spits claim 2 Zeroes v one Spit damaged beyond repair; Zeroes caught from above while strafing lose 1 (PO Kunio Sakai, wreck found) plus 1 crashed on the way back (PO Tadao Yamanaka). 'Soleil' has more detail on this incident from Japanese side than I'd seen seen before.
May 28: Spits claim 3 Betty's for loss of 2 Spits; Japanese claim 4 v. 2 Betty's lost (first bomber losses of the campaign) and 1 crashlanded on return.
June 20: Spits claim 9 bombers and 5 fighters for 3 Spits. This raid was the only one by the Japanese Army: they claimed 9 Spits for loss of 1 'Oscar' (1Lt Shigeto Kawata) of the 59th Sentai and 1 'Sally', plus 2 Sally's and 2 Lily's forcelanded near base.
June 28: Spits claim 2 bombers and 4 fighters for 2 Spits crashlanded; JNAF claims not known, 1 Betty crashed on landing, another and 3 Zeroes damaged.
June 30: Spits claim 7 total for 5 Spits to e/a + 2 to engine failure; Japanese claim 16 Spitfires for 1 Betty crashlanded.
July 6: Spits claim 9 for 6 Spit to e/a + 2 to engine failure; Japanese claim 14 Spits for 2 Betty's lost, 2 crashlanded and 2 Zeroes damaged.
Sept 7: Spits (intercepting heavily escorted 'Dinah's') claim 5 Zeroes for 3 losses; Japanese claim 13 Spits for 1 Zero lost (PO1c Yoshio Terai).

Joe

[Micdrow]

Great info there Joe!!!

[parsifal]

Joe

I agree, your research is very impressive, and i mean absolutely no disrespect, but the figures and some other things are causing some disquiet for me

I can and will put together an accurate list of RAAF losses for the specified time period you have nominated. Your list is very close to what I believe are the actual losses, but still think there are a couple of errors.

I cannot be nearly as certain as you about Japanese losses, and am the first to admit that my data and research are crumby when compared to your stuff. however, what you are saying is not gelling with a lot of other sources

For example, you mention that the sdsole resistance was the 202nd Kokutai. This is not the case, In fact an analysis of just one airfield in the area, Babo (at the end of the VogelKop peninsula), reveals the presence of the following units at various times

Japanese Units Based At Babo
202nd Kokutai (formally 3rd Kokutai - Zeros) early 1943 - March 1944
311th Hikotai of the 153 Kokutai - (A6M3-5 Zeros)
753rd & 732nd Kokutai - Betty (possibly based)
JAAF 7th Air Division
61st Sentai (Ki-49 Helen)
24th Sentai, 1st Chutai (Ki-43-II Oscar) Sumatra May 1943 to Dagua
34th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily) 1943
59th Sentai (Ki-43-II detachment) Malang 3-43 - 4-43 to But maybe longer
70th & 73rd Dokuritsu Chutai (Ki-45 Nick)
45th Sentai (Ki-45 Nick) 16 arrive February 19, 1944 to Wakde
75th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily)
25th Special Base Unit (Betty & Topsy Transports)

RAAF sources say that there were about 330 aircraft in the T/O, from elements of both the 23rd AF of the IJNAF and the 7th AD of the JAAF.

I am suspecting that the losses you are quoting are just those that relate to the 202nd, when in fact there were a lot of other units in the area. If there were a lot of other formations, it follows that there were a lot of other losses as well.

Determining Jap losses is an extremely difficult affair, and for that reason I would much prefer a co-operative approach to the problem, rather than getting into some P*ss*ng competition about who knows more. Who knows, we may all learn something from our collective knowledge.

I have to go, but will try and put that list of RAAF losses, and claims made in a couple of hours

[parsifal]

Tentatively, I think losses in the theatre for the allies were as follows

Mar 15: 3 Spit (AR619, 620 & BS 231)

Apr 19: 2 Hudson (A16-183 & 197)
Apr 26: 1 Beaf (A 19-59)

May 2: 8 Spit
May 4: 1 Beaf (A 19-60)
May 9: 1 Beaf (A 19-72)
May 19: 2 Hudson (A19-28 & 29)
May 28: 2 Spit

Jun 4: 1 B-24 (USAAF)
Jun 22: 2 Beaf (A19-62, 113)
Jun 23: 1 B-24 (USAAF)
Jun 30: 3 B-24 (USAAF)
4 Spit (BR 528, 490, 530 EE 670)
Jul 24: 1 Beaf (A 19-62)
Jul 26: 8 Spit

Aug 14: 1 B-24 (USAAF...was salvaged)
Aug 21: 2 Beaf (A 19-62 & 113)

Sep 7: 3 Spit (EF 558, LZ 884, BR 549)
Sep 9 : 1 Boomerang (Bombed)

[Wildcat]

Parsifal, this is what I have for Spitfire losses due to enemy action in this period.

Mar 15 :- 452 sqn - 2 spits
54 sqn - 2 spits

May 2 :- 457 sqn - 1
452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1
Plus a further 10 a/c lost due to fuel or engine problems.

May 10 :- 457 sqn - 1 (hit the ground whilst dogfighting)

May 28 :- 457 sqn - 2

Jun 20 :- 452 sqn - 2

Jun 30 :- 452 sqn -1
54 sqn -4

July 6 :- 457 sqn - 3
452 sqn - 1
54 sqn - 1

Sep 7 :- 452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1

[DauntlessDriver]

Hmmm... lookin' at this... I would suspect that the "boil-down" is this...

The Spitfire Mk.V is more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds... but the Spitfire is heavier than the Zero... how is this so? I would think lighter means less maneuverable in a fight.