English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please let us share your personal experience or opinion.
No cut-paste from the internet, please.
Thank you!

2006-09-14 01:47:46 · 5 answers · asked by Kanda 5 in Politics & Government Military

5 answers

Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV, with clipped wing tips for improved low level performance-the supreme fighter aircraft. Because the Spitfire was the only aircraft in service throughout the entire war (1939-1945) the manufacturers modified and improved it to its maximum and it was the ultimate propeller driven fighting machine.

2006-09-14 02:10:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Another showdown between the Zero and Spitfire was Darwin. The A6M2 was joined by the A6M3 vs the P-40E joined by the Spit Vc Trop. Niether side was victorious. The Japanese withdrew after urgent calls from Guadalcanal. The Ausies Held the skies but at great cost in fighters. It was 5 months of Japanese air raids. The Zero lost 10 to the P-40s but the P-40s lost 65 to all causes. The Spitfire fared no better. It had less range and acceleration than the P-40E not to mention the Zero. Of course the main target of the RAAF was the Japanese bombers not Zeros, and they downed a number of them. Flak forced the raids high above the Zero's best altitude, which favored the Spitfire. But it's Hispano cannons were unreliable up that high due to freezing. Tactics were already corrected after the virtual annihilation of the Spitfire Wing in Burma earlier. In fact even the Zero 32 Hamps were often using boom and zoom tactics too. Because of their acceleration advantage the top speed disparity was largely offset. Still, Spitfires were spinning out of control from accelerated stalls. On the other hand the Zero avoided combat over 30,000'. So the Spitfire could take sanctuary there. Alas, many ran out of fuel in the bargain. After the battle passed, the newer Spitfire VIII arrived to relieve the Mk V, and the Zero 22 which restored wing-loading and sported new high velocity cannons as well as more range replaced the clipped Zero 32. But I don't know if these met in battle. We know that the evaluation of the captured Hamp by the RAAF in Aug, 1942 showed the A6M3 owned the Mk V Spitfire under 20,000'. However, most Darwin combat ranged above that, evening things out a little. Though the evaluation favored the Zero, the battle was a stalemate in my opinion.

2016-03-27 00:59:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Supermarine Spitfire...especially the later models from XIV onwards. The Spitfire combined excellent flight performance with hard hitting power (mid-war onwards with at least 2 or more cannons plus machine guns), good protection and structural integrity.

The Zero-Sen had excellent flight performance and good firepower (2 cannons plus 2 or 4 machine guns) but armour protection and structural integrity was always weak. Even their later models with some armour and safety features were pathetic because the armour wasnt enough and the result almost always cut into the flight performance.

In the end the factor that will make the difference is the pilots...but since the Japs had a more time-intensive training regimen than the Brits...overall Brit pilots were of good quality regardless of losses thanks to pilot rotation (there would always be experienced guys to teach newbie pilots), while the Japs after suffering losses would lose quality quickly...as their experienced pilots would be gone and no one would teach the newer ones.

2006-09-14 02:43:37 · answer #3 · answered by betterdeadthansorry 5 · 2 0

I'm afraid everybody seems misinformed the zero and the spitfire did tangle with one another over places like Singapore and Burma. The spitfire didn't like the heavy damp air in the Asian theater and thus lost a good percentage of it's max power output. as a result the spitfire couldn't out climb or out run the zero. The spitfire never ever could out turn a zero. The results of these facts are that the RAF was driven out of Singapore and out of Burma until much later when US built aircraft came along and drove the zero away. I will say that much later marks of spitfire did solve a lot of the spitfire's earlier faults but they were just too late in the war to make a difference. When it comes to looks and sounds I would always choose the spit. In combat I will always take the zero It out classes the spit in every category except speed and diving speed.

2006-09-14 07:02:25 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 0 1

Spitfire. Mark IX or later. Faster, better turning circle. Less manoeuverable, perhaps. And they won.....

2006-09-14 01:52:59 · answer #5 · answered by inquisitor 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers