Luftwaffe Zeros?

The Pacific was huge, created a need for longer range aircraft. Many of the islands are far apart, so every 100 miles extra range helps a lot. Enemy airfields are few. Even locations for potential enemy airfields are limited.

Yet you had the Hawk-75,long range, not meant for island cruising, just standard pursuit fighter, 825 miles

Been curious about this for some years. You have some sources to recommend on the Hawk in the BoF, or can provide more data?

If you can read French, this is the best
919120240.jpg


and for some period info on performance
http://www.gc2-4.com/NSGAcouv.htm
http://www.gc2-4.com/NMACcouv.htm




I posted some info before, I'll see if I can dig it out.

But pretty much top pilots, low losses, high kill counts, with the caveat of overclaiming.
 
Last edited:
However, they did not win the battle of France. One purpose of fighters is to achieve air superiority

Hard to do, given the small number of Hawk 75s they had.
The Squadrons that did have them, had far lower losses than the other French types, only the D.520 was in the same league

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36_9.html

The Hawk 75A served with Armee de l'Air Groupes de Chasse III/2, I/4, II/4, I/5 and II/5, these units claiming 230 confirmed kills and 80 "probables", as against losses totaling only 29 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. Although these figures are probably over-optimistic, it seems likely that the French Hawks gave better than they got. The Hawk 75A was neither as fast nor as well-armed as the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, but it was more maneuverable and could take more punishment. The leading French ace of 1939/40 was Lt Marin La Meslee, who scored 20 "kills" while flying the Hawk.

Only 291 Hawk 75A fighters were actually taken on strength by the Armee de l'Air before the collapse of French resistance, but a number were lost en route to French ports. As mentioned before, only six A-4s actually reached France before the Armistice
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
Yet you had the Hawk-75,long range, not meant for island cruising, just standard pursuit fighter, 825 miles



If you can read French, this is the best
919120240.jpg


and for some period info on performance
http://www.gc2-4.com/NSGAcouv.htm
http://www.gc2-4.com/NMACcouv.htm




I posted some info before, I'll see if I can dig it out.

But pretty much top pilots, low losses, high kill counts, with the caveat of overclaiming.

Yet from the perspective of the designers of the zero, they can't change basic engine technology in Japan. They don't have access to French or USA tech. Or to USA style budgets. The Zero is an excellent plane considering the design constraints.
 
Yet from the perspective of the designers of the zero, they can't change basic engine technology in Japan. They don't have access to French or USA tech. Or to USA style budgets. The Zero is an excellent plane considering the design constraints.

You can do alot with a 1000HP engine, but the Zero really didn't lack for technology, but IJN mindset. Nakajima made more than the Sakae 21(that was based off the series. They made the slightly larger Ha-5, bigger diameter, like the difference between the Wright R-1820 and P&W R-1830 that were both used in the P-36, with a change in mounts and cowls.

Sakae 21 1700 ci, 45" diameter, 1130hp on 92 octane and 1300 pounds with a two speed blower 940hp in 1940 trim.

The Ha-5 a larger 50" diameter, with 2288 ci had more potential for growth, up to 1500hp for 1380 pounds. 950 hp in 1940 trim.

Could have gone for the even larger Ha-32 by Mitsubishi, 2567 cu, 53 in diameter, 1720 lbs good for 1800HP in time(1500 in 1940 trim)

These were all 14 cyl twin row engines.

Now for comparison P&W R-1830 48" dia, 1050HP 1250 lbs with single speed blower

Wright R-1820 54" dia 1000hp 1190 lbs. this was a single row, 9 cylinder engine

Wright R-2600 55" dia 1600 hp 2050 lbs

A Zero should have gone to a larger diameter, higher displacement engine, like Nakajima did in changing the Ki-43 Oscar to the Ki-44 Tojo first flew in 1940, but low priority for production
 
Hard to do, given the small number of Hawk 75s they had.
The Squadrons that did have them, had far lower losses than the other French types, only the D.520 was in the same league

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36_9.html

The Hawk 75A served with Armee de l'Air Groupes de Chasse III/2, I/4, II/4, I/5 and II/5, these units claiming 230 confirmed kills and 80 "probables", as against losses totaling only 29 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. Although these figures are probably over-optimistic, it seems likely that the French Hawks gave better than they got. The Hawk 75A was neither as fast nor as well-armed as the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, but it was more maneuverable and could take more punishment. The leading French ace of 1939/40 was Lt Marin La Meslee, who scored 20 "kills" while flying the Hawk.
It is difficult to find definite numbers for the Battle of France. However, Edmond Marin la Meslee was credited with 16 "confirmed victories", including 3 Stukas in a day, and several HS-126s. He is credited with one Bf-109, on May 13. Jean Accart was credited with 12 victories, all Dorniers and Heinkels. Such numbers don't suggest that the Curtiss Hawk could go toe to toe with the Bf-109, but that Hawk pilots were careful about who they met.
 
Such numbers don't suggest that the Curtiss Hawk could go toe to toe with the Bf-109, but that Hawk pilots were careful about who they met.

Yet still far better than the other types. Why were Ms-406 and D.510drivers unable to duplicate those feats of slaughtering Stukas? They had a performance advantage over the ground attack craft as well as the Hawks.
 
A Zero should have gone to a larger diameter, higher displacement engine, like Nakajima did in changing the Ki-43 Oscar to the Ki-44 Tojo first flew in 1940, but low priority for production

I thought I was the only one who favored a Kasei-powered Zero.

The Ki-43 was not changed into the Ki-44 Shoki. It was a separate model, designed to be an intercepter, much as was the Raiden. Japanese pilots, used to the gentle Hayabusa, found the Shoki a handful to land, particularly on the poor Japanese airstrips, and unable to perform the ballerina-like movements they favored. Also, boom and zoom was considered to be cowardice.
 
Yet still far better than the other types. Why were Ms-406 and D.510drivers unable to duplicate those feats of slaughtering Stukas? They had a performance advantage over the ground attack craft as well as the Hawks.
The Stukas were slaughtered because the 109s or 110s weren't there, and the Hawks were. It happened once.
 
The Stukas were slaughtered because the 109s or 110s weren't there, and the Hawks were. It happened once.

Most of the German aircraft destroyed during the Battle of France were bombers. I have 525 bombers, 125 dive bombers, 275 transports(most over Belgium), 235 Bf-109 fighters and 75 Bf-110

Sounds like the fighters weren't escorting properly.
Still, don't you think it odd only the Hawks were around when the big numbers bombers and Stukas were lost, fighters nowhere to be seen? They had over 1000 fighters flying over France.
Why were the Hawks luckier than the Ms-405 or D.500s? Do you think those hawk pilots just overclaimed more? they certainly had fewer losses in the air, 29 of an overall loss of 71 Hawks.
 
There is also the, supposedly made in Finland' observation: Brewster Buffalo was the gentleman's aircraft, while Bf 109 was a killing machine.

The notion that the Brewster was a gentleman's plane comes, I believe, from it being easy to handle, with good space in the cockpit and general comfort for the pilot. It was "a pleasure to fly". The Bf-109, on the other hand, felt very matter-of-fact in comparison, not designed for comfort but for war, even at the expence of the pilot. More difficult and tricky to fly, as well, at least at first. This from the memoirs of Finnish wartime pilots.

For what it's worth, here is a provisional comparison of the win/loss ratios of the Curtiss Hawk, the Brewster F2A-1/Model 239 and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 in Finnish service:

Curtiss: 14 to 1
Brewster: 32 to 1
Messerschmitt: 21 to 1

All three were used mostly during the Continuation War, so roughly speaking those numbers should be comparative in a very rudimentary sense, of course with the caveat that while both the American planes were used all through the war, and mostly in the early part, the Bf-109 started its service in Finland only in the spring of 1943 and was the FAF:s primary workhorse in the difficult days of 1944. It thus faced, on average, tougher Soviet opponents than the other two planes.
 
Last edited:
Most of the German aircraft destroyed during the Battle of France were bombers. I have 525 bombers, 125 dive bombers, 275 transports(most over Belgium), 235 Bf-109 fighters and 75 Bf-110

Sounds like the fighters weren't escorting properly.
Still, don't you think it odd only the Hawks were around when the big numbers bombers and Stukas were lost, fighters nowhere to be seen? They had over 1000 fighters flying over France.
Why were the Hawks luckier than the Ms-405 or D.500s? Do you think those hawk pilots just overclaimed more? they certainly had fewer losses in the air, 29 of an overall loss of 71 Hawks.
First of all, the MS-406 has been degraded to -405 and D.520 to 510 to 500. Finding mistakes and discrepancies in published histories saddens me, and the history of the Battle of France has discrepancies all over the place, leading me to suspect that primary source materials have been written by historians more interested in French pride than historical accuracy. John Terraine did make such a disclaimer regarding the nature of source material in general in his rather pleasant "Right of the Line". This means that nobody will ever know the true facts, ever.
On June 13, 13 H75s of GC III/2 encountered Ju-87Bs of II/StG 77 and attacked. They were interrupted by Bf-109s of 2/JG27, and in the ensuing battle, the Hawks claimed 3 Stukas and 4 109s destroyed plus 2 Stukas probable. Luftwaffe losses recorded were one and one, plus some damaged. Losses to the Hawks were 3, one pilot killed and 2 wounded.
Losses of H.75 to F4F Wlidcats a bit later were 15 vs 7 Wildcats.
If I get really frisky, it might be interesting to quantify the career of the Bf-110 vs H.75. Some Zerstorers achieved victories over the H.75, but I know of nothing the other way. If you have some data...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There is a huge gap between the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain. It is the same gap one find in the Continuation War and on the Eastern front. The gap is ~12,000 feet.

The air engagements in France were generally at medium/low level, as was the case for most of the Finnish campaign and on the Eastern Front. In these scenarios the fighting was largely, althouth not exclusively tactical/ground support. The aircraft that keep being brought up, be it the A6M, the Hawk 75 or even the F2A, were all good to excellent performers at 10-15K, absolutely top notch as under 10K, The BoB wasn't fought at 10K, not even at 15K, it was fought up in the thin air of 20-25K. That was the domain of very few fighter aircraft in 1939 & 1940 (one of the reason the bombers flew at that altitude when making strategic attacks, along with ground based counter-measures like AAA and even barrage balloons).

It always comes back to this simple fact. The war was not the same on the strategic side as on the tactical side. Aircraft that were despised in the ETO and the Pacific were stars in the more tactical role. The P-39 could turn inside a quail at 12,000 feet in temperate and cold climates (several RAF test pilots called it the most nimble aircraft they ever flew at that altitude) and the Soviets adored it as a fighter (not a ground attack aircraft, as is sometimes believed); in the Pacific, where it was hot, it was seen as a pig, and the RAF rejected it out of hand because at 20K+ it couldn't get out its own way.
 
Last edited:
P-39D was a pig when expected to perform well against an incoming air raid coming in at 15-17-20 thousand feet, since it featured twice the weight of the guns and ammo when compared with BoB trio of fighters, with much more armor, and a tad more fuel than the BoB trio had; all of this when having a comparable engine power. Let's try to stick another 500 lbs of guns and ammo, along with heavier armor suit and up to 3 (three) radios on the Spit I or Bf 109 and expect them to perform.
Or, P-40D was a pig when compared with P-40B. Pacific was hot disregarding the engines, and the P-40s and P-38s were also outfitted with V-1710s.
We can note that P-38 carried about the same weight of guns & ammo as the P-39, on more than twice the engine power.
The P-39 was also not well regarded since it carried the smallest amout of fuel when compared with other US aircraft of the era.

In Soviet Union, the VVS was not shy of stripping the wing guns & ammo, one or more armor plates, one or two radios, and then go fight Luftwaffe. P-39 was the best performing fighter the Soviet had, until the advent of La-7, Yak-3 and P-63. It helped a lot that VVS was not expecting that fighters have the combat radius of many hundred miles (cancels out one of Pacific-related problem) and LW bombing sorties were not incoming at that high altitudes (cancels another one); the over-boosting of the V-1710 was a fine asset under 10-12 kft. The VVS experience was also good since they also got later versions of the P-39s, with -N and -Q getting close to 390-400 mph.
 
As the A6M2 not of much use in the Battle of Britain, is there somewhere else where the A6M2 could be of use to the Germans?
Maybe as a maritime fighter on the west coast of France to give longer range in to the atlantic?
 
As the A6M2 not of much use in the Battle of Britain, is there somewhere else where the A6M2 could be of use to the Germans?
Maybe as a maritime fighter on the west coast of France to give longer range in to the atlantic?

Or they could have jacked it up, put it on a trolley and fired it off the Graf Zeppelin. For all its flaws, it would certainly have been a better bet than the 109T.
 
The A6M was designed and serviced in the Pacifci for a Pacific War and certainly not a European war with much more powerful groundbased aircrforces to deal wuth in a much smaller space. The lightly build A6M needed space and operational freedom to perform its main role as a Naval shipbased Fighter and was seriously illequipped to deal with high concentrations of landbased first rate high performance fighters of European design. European fighters were seriously more dedicated interceptors and dogfighters, as they were mostly specialised for one main role only, sicne other types performed in other roles, which luxury is not possible for a carrierbased aircraft, which in most terms had to be a Multi role aircraft, such as the A6M. Though the A6M early variants outclased the early 1939 period Spitfire and Bf-109's, the later more contemporary Spitfires and Bf-109's as well as the newer FW-190's outclassed the nimble A6M, due to their much higher speed and firepower. The Radial engined A6M also had the disadvantage over the liquid cooled Bf-109 and Spitfire its engine could not produce the same power to weight ratio, due to less efficient cooling of the enigine.
 
...
Though the A6M early variants outclased the early 1939 period Spitfire and Bf-109's, the later more contemporary Spitfires and Bf-109's as well as the newer FW-190's outclassed the nimble A6M, due to their much higher speed and firepower. The Radial engined A6M also had the disadvantage over the liquid cooled Bf-109 and Spitfire its engine could not produce the same power to weight ratio, due to less efficient cooling of the enigine.

The early A6M variants were of lower performnce than the Spitfire I or Bf 109E-3 of 1939 vintage. It took until mid-1942 for the A6M to equal speed figures of the Spit I and 109E-3, while perhaps besting them in rate of climb.
The firepower of the A6M was always very good, keeping pace with what Spit and 109 were offering. The cannons gained ammo increase twice (60 rd drum -> 100 rd box -> 125 rd belt), while the cannons themselves were of improved type from 1943 on. The HMGs (once acquired) were reasonably poweful and light.
The power-to-weight ratio of radial engines was always favorable, Japanese engines inclusive; especially it was true if we include the weight of the liquid cooling system. It was the drag that put radial engines in disadvantage when installed in fighters, more power was needed to equal the speed of the fighters with V12 engines of about the same weight (including the cooling system).
 
The Radial engined A6M also had the disadvantage over the liquid cooled Bf-109 and Spitfire its engine could not produce the same power to weight ratio, due to less efficient cooling of the enigine.

The Sakae 21 with a two speed blower was 1300 pounds, single speed a bit less for 940 HP from 1700 cubic inches.
Dry weight on the Merlin was 1640 lbs, almost the same as its displacement, and as per the comment above, add in glycol, plumbing and radiator weight to weight for the engine, and then the weight for the liquid cooled intercooler
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As the A6M2 not of much use in the Battle of Britain, is there somewhere else where the A6M2 could be of use to the Germans?
Maybe as a maritime fighter on the west coast of France to give longer range in to the atlantic?
Only if the Graf Zeppelin actually reaches commission.
 
The Zero is an excellent plane considering the design constraints.
I agree. Had it been produced at even Italian rates accompanied with an effective pilot training scheme, the A6M could have been competitive well into the war, instead of being swatted out of the sky by F4Us and F6Fs.
 
Top