Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

[parsifal]

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification

[proton45]

Originally Posted by parsifal

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification

Ya, I think your right...

The hype was really on the A6M and most likely an over excited AVG pilot just misidentified a Type 1 as an A6M (you can almost hear him screaming, "I got a zero, I got a zero!!!"). I have even seen early US military briefs that claim the A6M was in use with the IJA & the IJN...

[jugggo]

Would have to go with the Corsair. Since it did have a 11-1 kill ratio and not to mention to be used as a multi-platform ie fighter/bomber. With that being said it did increase drasticlly the bomb tonnage used in the Pacific.

[thewritingwriter89]

I would have to say any of the early 109s V series through D. They were revolutionary, and even ahead of their contemporaries (with exception to the spitfire). It was the benchmark for a critical phase in fighter design, and it has to get credit.

TWW89

[tomo pauk]

Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks.
Too bad it's not in the poll.

[thewritingwriter89]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks.
Too bad it's not in the poll.

You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by thewritingwriter89

You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.

I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing & take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?

[Glider]

An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Glider

An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.

Doesn't really answer your question
but it's an interesting read, doesn't sound like the Poles really cared. I was aware of Polish excellence in aviation, their fighter school at Deblin was arguably the finest in the world at the time, but I also thought the Poles were largely caught on the ground

Deadly Eagles: The Polish Air Force in 1939 : Great History

[thewritingwriter89]

Originally Posted by proton45

I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing & take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?

Your facts are sound proton. Looked em up today. Mainly, I was just saying the late 1930s shift in design theory was due in large part to the 109, and the threat/design potential it offered. Basically, other countries saw the 109, and thought "what we have in development, speed it up, or get it on the drawing board." This is, of course, a over-simplified generalization, but you get my drift.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Joe - why were the awards described as Type O or Zero if they were type 1's?

I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case. The AVG's retractable undercarriage fighter opponents were apparently all Type 1's of the 64th Sentai JAAF. The 64th had a couple of engagements with the AVG in late December 1941 in large escorted raids against (allied held) Rangoon, mainly escorted by Type 97's; then the 64th began meeting the AVG more regularly from late March 1942 when it was based at Chang Mai Thailand, engaging AVG squadrons based in both Burma and south China, and AVG raiding Chang Mai several times. The 64th was the only Type 1 unit in the theater at the time, and no IJN fighter units were present.

But the Type 1 was not even known to be a separate type at that time; the Army Type 97 and Navy 0 were known, the Type 1's exsitence separate from the Zero was only gradually figured out, after the AVG period it seems. Also in the mythology of the AVG, Type 97's opponents, which everyone knew at the time were not Zeroes, have been referred to as Zeroes too.

Counting in Ford's "Flying Tigers", which uses Senshi Sosho Vol 34 as its main Japanese source, the AVG shot down, just among fighters, about 35 Type 97's, 11 Type 1's, 3 Type 2 two-seat ('Nick'); they also met preproduction Type 2's (Tojo) being used for combat trials, but apparently didn't down any. They lost around 15 P-40's in air combat to fighters, a record far better than any other Allied fighter unit v Japanese in 1942 which saw significant action. But, besides their own strengths in flying experience (lots of high hour peacetime US military pilots, mainly w/o combat experience but still pretty different than typical green mass produced '41-42 British/CW pilots, or those of the rapidly expanded USAAC/F in '41-42) and tactics, the AVG also mainly learned the ropes v Type 97's then mainly met the Type 1's later on.

The 64th Sentai was usually bested in its Type 1's v the AVG, but had on average much the better of it v Hurricane units all the way thru 1943. USAAF P-51A's in Burma attempting long range escort against (Japanese held) Rangoon in late 1943 lost more a/c to Japanese fighters than they downed. And, P-40 units in Burma and China, including AVG's successor 23rd FG, typically came out more like even v Japanese fighters in 42-43, with more advantage as time went on but not the same degree as the AVG. The 64th was again the opponent in many cases. The story of initially successful Japanese fighters which quickly turned to pumpkins fits the facts particularly poorly when it comes to the AVG and the 64th Sentai.

Joe

[proton45]

Originally Posted by JoeB

I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case.

Joe

I tend to qualify my historical comments with uncertainties...mostly because, even though I feel confident of my research materials...I'm not always confident in my memory.


p.s. Thanks for the well written information...your posts are always a joy to read.

[buffnut453]

Originally Posted by parsifal

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification

Hi Parsifal,

You're right. To the Allies in 1941-1943, any Japanese fighter with retractable undercarriage was a Zero (or Type 0). The subtle distinction of IJAAF and IJN functions, role and equipment were not necessarily fully understood. The Type 1 (Ki-43) was not called out as a distinct design until well into 1943...IIRC.

KR
Mark

[buffnut453]

Dumb question...why are we focussing on WWII aircraft? Surely the Fokker Eindecker merits an honourable mention? And how about the MiG-15 over Korea. Just a few tangential thoughts....I'll shut up now!!

[Civettone]

Tomo, good call on the I-16 !!


Kris