Author Topic: Top 12 Reasons Jug was best WWII fighter (Read 3179 times)

F4UDOA · « **Reply #75 on:** September 23, 2003, 07:40:09 AM »

Actually Angus many Spits were lost to the Japanese in the early fighting. Many of them BoB veterens who were not expecting to be beaten at there own game.

The early mark Spits and Hurricanes did not have a significant performance advantage over the A6M2. In the case of the Hurricane they had no advantage at all.

Guppy · « **Reply #76 on:** September 23, 2003, 08:46:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
There would be one downside for a US fighter pilot to convert to the ETO. He would not be faster than his opponent any more. Even find himself Boomed and Zoomed, bounced, outrun and outclimbed by the LW.

If we're talking A6Ms and Ki-43s as opposition, yes, but Allied pilots couldn't always rely on having that kind of speed advantage. Once the Ki-61s began arriving in 1943, the P-40 could well find itself outclassed in an engagement.

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Actually Angus many Spits were lost to the Japanese in the early fighting.

One interesting thing to note is that the first Spitfires sent to the Pacific seem to have had major reliability issues. When I was reading a history of No. 1 Wing (tropicalised Spitfire Vs in Australia), I was surprised at the sheer number of operational losses. One scramble ended with 10+ Spitfires lost to all causes; fortunately, going down fairly close to their airbase, the pilots were usually recovered.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #77 on:** September 23, 2003, 09:27:22 AM »

Guppy,

It wasn't realiability as much as it was fuel. They were fighting in a much larger area than the English channel.

The A6M2 had the range of a Mustang so it could climb, fly in at high altitude, fight and fly back with no fear of running out of gas. At the same time the Spit pilots could not pursue the fight beyond base defense and if they did it would be a one way trip.

The Spit was very short legged which really hampered it in the PTO.

Angus · « **Reply #78 on:** September 23, 2003, 10:00:19 AM »

Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.
Hurricane IIB with 12 guns and a slipper tank was delivered to Burma, - but weigted up with those extras it was heavy and slow. I recall the tanks and 4 guns being removed to restore the planes qualities, - after that it was quite much faster than the Claude.
The Spitfire VII (or was it the VIII) was delivered to the far east at the prime time of the a6m. The opponent would have been the a6m3 presumably? Now that was quite a difference!

Guppy · « **Reply #79 on:** September 23, 2003, 11:41:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
It wasn't realiability as much as it was fuel. They were fighting in a much larger area than the English channel.

Unfortunately I don't have the book available to me anymore, but "fuel starvation" and "engine failure" were definitely recorded as separate loss categories. There were quite a few cases of both.

The author was one of No 1 Wing's ground personnel, if I recall correctly, and his opinion was that the aircraft they received were in poor condition and nowhere near new. (Of course, when one reads what American mechanics were doing to keep planes in the air at the same time... nobody in that theatre really had it "good.")

Guppy · « **Reply #80 on:** September 23, 2003, 11:51:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.

Yes, but the Spitfire Vs assigned to Darwin in early 1943 met A6Ms escorting bombers.

Quote

The Spitfire VII (or was it the VIII) was delivered to the far east at the prime time of the a6m. The opponent would have been the a6m3 presumably? Now that was quite a difference!

Interesting quote from j-aircraft.com, attributed to Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda (64th Sentai, Burma 1944):

"We were encountering a serious problem by this time. Recent Spitfires seem to have adopted even more powerful engines and and their climb and speed had improved considerably. Chasing and shooting down these enemy fighters with our Hayabusa Mk IIs became increasingly difficult."

udet · « **Reply #81 on:** September 23, 2003, 12:38:18 PM »

I thought the Jug was a fighter-bomber:confused:

HoHun · « **Reply #82 on:** September 23, 2003, 01:22:21 PM »

Hi Guppy,

>The author was one of No 1 Wing's ground personnel, if I recall correctly, and his opinion was that the aircraft they received were in poor condition and nowhere near new.

From J. Helsdon Thomas' "Wings over Burma" (ground personnel 67 Squadron), I got a very similar impression for the Burma theatre.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

-ammo- · « **Reply #83 on:** September 23, 2003, 01:35:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by udet
I thought the Jug was a fighter-bomber:confused:

The P-47 was originally designed strictly as an air superiority fighter. It was quickly realized in 1944 that it performed in the air-to-ground role quite well.

Widewing · « **Reply #84 on:** September 24, 2003, 01:01:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.
Hurricane IIB with 12 guns and a slipper tank was delivered to Burma, - but weigted up with those extras it was heavy and slow. I recall the tanks and 4 guns being removed to restore the planes qualities, - after that it was quite much faster than the Claude.

What they faced was the Ki-27 Nate. Like the A5M Claude, it had fixed landing gear and just two 7.7mm popguns. However, the Claude was a Naval fighter and was not in service in Burma. In the Spring of 1942, the Ki-43 began appearing in ever increasing numbers.

Max speed for the Ki-27 was around 287 mph, 305 mph for early Ki-43s. Initially, the most common RAF fighter in Burma was the Brewster, and their primary bomber was the obsolete Blenheim.

See Dan Ford's book, "Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group" for details.

My regards,

Widewing

Angus · « **Reply #85 on:** September 24, 2003, 04:54:05 AM »

Yes, the Nate it was, - sorry, got them mixed up.
Hmm, the Blenheim I could do 285 mph, and the Brewster would crawl over to some 310-320 mph. A lightweight Hurricane II would top that. So in terms of sheer speed and armament, the Japanese were inferior to begin with. However they had a tactical advantage, and many times the numbers.
Hey Widewing, wasn't it you who has been taking interviews with many WW2 aces? Would love to see some of that if possible:)

udet · « **Reply #86 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:06:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
The P-47 was originally designed strictly as an air superiority fighter. It was quickly realized in 1944 that it performed in the air-to-ground role quite well.

Air superiority against what? Maybe pre E models of the 109

hazed- · « **Reply #87 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:35:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.

ack-ack

same here ack ack its almost hilariously disrespectfull.

Can you imagine them saying that same thing to their faces after they have just described a fight in all its fearfull detail in person......

'er, yeah mr fighter pilot you may have BEEN there but i know im right, ive flown 3,000,000 hours on a computer sim'

lol they fail to mention that no two computer sims are alike, real pilots had real limits not least of which was bravery to actually try a ACM of any type.Computer sims are sims, they are never like the real life model totally or we'd all need supercomputers to run them just to model real airflow/movement etc. Corners are cut at every turn to make a sim yet these guys think they know better than the guys that flew the real planes!. amazing.