While re-reading Lundstrom's The First Team at Guadalcanal I found this interesting statistic. Referring to the period Ferbruary 1, 1942 to June 4, 1942 "...in direct confrontations between the two fighters, fifteen Zeros secumbed as opposed to ten F4Fs (seven pilots killed.)" The conditions under which they fought were similar and the only varibles I can think of were possiblly the skill of the piots and certainly the tactics. It seems that contrary to conventional wisdom that while the Zero was better in a dogfight, the Wildcat was the better overall fighter.
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Wildcat vs Zero
- Thread starter Hern07
- Start date
I would have to argue no, the Wildcat was not overall better. It was what we had to make due with in them early years. I have read many accounts of pilots comparing the Wildcat to the Zero. The Wildcat was slower, less manuverable, but could take a lot of damage and still fly. Never dogfight a Zero.
The Zero had everything, and a glass jaw.
The Zero had everything, and a glass jaw.
Research Thach Weave. He developed the maneuver in the summer of 1941 for Navy and Marine pilots engaging Zeros. It more than evened the odds because of the attack tactics of the IJN pilots of the time.
Just too bad CFS2 will not allow us to do it. I have experimented with it, but from a mission builder's point of view, it is extremely difficult to accomplish. One has to take 2 sets of 2 fighters instead of a flight of 4, which was common. Then, one has to begin the weave and set the IJN pilot skills at ace to get them to attack. At the attack point one has to begin the weave with the Wildcats and set their pilots as veterans to get them to stay in the weave and attack IJN Zeros attacking. With all of that it is difficult to get all the aircraft to cooperate once the first shot is fired. Once that first shot is fired, all of the AI aircraft, friendly and enemy begin doing their own thing. Once the dogifght is over, the AI friendlies begin the weave at the WP where the battle began. CFS2 just does not allow for the Thach weave, even though it was the most successful tactic Wildcats had against Zeros after the summer of '41.
Just too bad CFS2 will not allow us to do it. I have experimented with it, but from a mission builder's point of view, it is extremely difficult to accomplish. One has to take 2 sets of 2 fighters instead of a flight of 4, which was common. Then, one has to begin the weave and set the IJN pilot skills at ace to get them to attack. At the attack point one has to begin the weave with the Wildcats and set their pilots as veterans to get them to stay in the weave and attack IJN Zeros attacking. With all of that it is difficult to get all the aircraft to cooperate once the first shot is fired. Once that first shot is fired, all of the AI aircraft, friendly and enemy begin doing their own thing. Once the dogifght is over, the AI friendlies begin the weave at the WP where the battle began. CFS2 just does not allow for the Thach weave, even though it was the most successful tactic Wildcats had against Zeros after the summer of '41.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
"It seems that contrary to conventional wisdom that while the Zero was better in a dogfight, the Wildcat was the better overall fighter."
Depends on whether we're talking about the A6M2 or the A6M5. The M5 was a much improved version with a better airframe, more armor and some semblance of self-sealing tanks and fuel fire extinguishers (it could take a hit better). It had better diving performance, while also matching the M2 in overall maneuverability, range and firepower. It was truly a Wildcat killer, even in the hands of a novice.
But underneath all of this, it was the basic US Armed Forces aerial combat philosophy and such advanced tactics as the Thach Weave, as Devildog mentioned, developed on the front in the heat of battle, that made the difference. Tactics will always trump technology. From all of my readings, it seems that in their basic training, both USN and USAAF pilots are drilled exhaustively in the concepts of fighting in team elements and striving at all times to maintain team integrity during the fight - always watching your mate's six and hold the flight together. The Thach maneuver was simply an advancement of this "team" school. I've even read accounts of American pilots offensively engaged with a target perfectly in the crosshairs, only to notice another friendly under attack and break off their own attack to assist him.
The Japanese on the other hand seemed to encourage the lone, 'invincible warrior' mentality in their fighter pilots, according to some of their surviving aces and airmen. Since they already knew they had the superior performing weapons in the Zero, Tony and Oscar, it was just a matter of encouraging individual bravado and skill in exploiting the advantage. Mutual support was not the primary focus of the Japanese fighter pilot in the furball, unless that furball also involved some measure of bomber escort. But in a pure fighter vs. fighter engagement, once the crap hit the fan, the Japanese seemed to always take an "every man for himself" approach, only coming to the aid of a comrade under assault if they were conveniently free to do so and the event was nearby. For them it was simply about killing the enemy at all costs. For the American pilots it was always about accomplishing the mission at hand while getting EVERYONE back safely to fight another day. At the most basic level, i believe it was the ideals of Japanese Bushido that prevented the front line Jap fighter pilots from devising an effective countermeasure for the Weave. A well-coordinated flight of two or four marksmen could have defeated the Weave with little effort. But throughout the remainder of the war, whenever they encountered the Weave, they would foolishly charge in individually ( i presume as a show of situational mastery) or just break off in frustration for easier pickings.
Depends on whether we're talking about the A6M2 or the A6M5. The M5 was a much improved version with a better airframe, more armor and some semblance of self-sealing tanks and fuel fire extinguishers (it could take a hit better). It had better diving performance, while also matching the M2 in overall maneuverability, range and firepower. It was truly a Wildcat killer, even in the hands of a novice.
But underneath all of this, it was the basic US Armed Forces aerial combat philosophy and such advanced tactics as the Thach Weave, as Devildog mentioned, developed on the front in the heat of battle, that made the difference. Tactics will always trump technology. From all of my readings, it seems that in their basic training, both USN and USAAF pilots are drilled exhaustively in the concepts of fighting in team elements and striving at all times to maintain team integrity during the fight - always watching your mate's six and hold the flight together. The Thach maneuver was simply an advancement of this "team" school. I've even read accounts of American pilots offensively engaged with a target perfectly in the crosshairs, only to notice another friendly under attack and break off their own attack to assist him.
The Japanese on the other hand seemed to encourage the lone, 'invincible warrior' mentality in their fighter pilots, according to some of their surviving aces and airmen. Since they already knew they had the superior performing weapons in the Zero, Tony and Oscar, it was just a matter of encouraging individual bravado and skill in exploiting the advantage. Mutual support was not the primary focus of the Japanese fighter pilot in the furball, unless that furball also involved some measure of bomber escort. But in a pure fighter vs. fighter engagement, once the crap hit the fan, the Japanese seemed to always take an "every man for himself" approach, only coming to the aid of a comrade under assault if they were conveniently free to do so and the event was nearby. For them it was simply about killing the enemy at all costs. For the American pilots it was always about accomplishing the mission at hand while getting EVERYONE back safely to fight another day. At the most basic level, i believe it was the ideals of Japanese Bushido that prevented the front line Jap fighter pilots from devising an effective countermeasure for the Weave. A well-coordinated flight of two or four marksmen could have defeated the Weave with little effort. But throughout the remainder of the war, whenever they encountered the Weave, they would foolishly charge in individually ( i presume as a show of situational mastery) or just break off in frustration for easier pickings.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Devildog, while you may not be able to actually set up a T-Weave in MB, you can get it done in a manner of speaking while in the heat of combat by using well timed commands. Its kinda tricky but here's what i've managed in QC and missions with target rich environments on a regular basis:
Assuming your flight is either Veteran or Ace with aggressiveness HIGH, if you see a wingie in trouble, call for a rejoin immediately as you head in his direction with another bogey on your own six in pursuit. Since there's nothing in front of him at this point, he'll comply. As he approaches, tell him to engage your attacker. At some point your wingie will intersect your flight path and drag his attacker across your nose. As you came within range, blast your wingie's attacker with a head-on or deflection shot and immediately tell him again to engage the bogey on your own six and you literally begin to "drag" your attacker to your wingie's guns. The wingie may take the head-on shot, but also be prepared for him to swing around for a six o'clock shot on your attacker. See it?...i know its not really the official Weave in motion, but the mutual support concept is there.
The only caveat here is that when you call the rejoin, others in your flight may also comply, ultimately giving you more firepower to bear on that guy chasing you.
Assuming your flight is either Veteran or Ace with aggressiveness HIGH, if you see a wingie in trouble, call for a rejoin immediately as you head in his direction with another bogey on your own six in pursuit. Since there's nothing in front of him at this point, he'll comply. As he approaches, tell him to engage your attacker. At some point your wingie will intersect your flight path and drag his attacker across your nose. As you came within range, blast your wingie's attacker with a head-on or deflection shot and immediately tell him again to engage the bogey on your own six and you literally begin to "drag" your attacker to your wingie's guns. The wingie may take the head-on shot, but also be prepared for him to swing around for a six o'clock shot on your attacker. See it?...i know its not really the official Weave in motion, but the mutual support concept is there.
The only caveat here is that when you call the rejoin, others in your flight may also comply, ultimately giving you more firepower to bear on that guy chasing you.
Jagdflieger
Jr. Admin
Eric Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" does a great job of explaining the differences between Japanese and American doctrine, training, equipment, maintenence and motivation. It's a bit esoteric, but well worth the read.
For you ground pounders and infantry types, he also wrote "Touched by Fire" which does for the ground war what "Fire in the Sky" does for the air war in the Pacific.
For you ground pounders and infantry types, he also wrote "Touched by Fire" which does for the ground war what "Fire in the Sky" does for the air war in the Pacific.
I read a discussion once that made quite a lot of sense and fit the facts pretty well.
One on One, the Mitsubishi A6M2 would easily beat either the F4F-3 or the F4F-4. The F4F-3 was the superior of the two. The advantage of the Wildcat showed up when the fight was many versus many. The A6M2 only carried 60 rounds for each of its 20 mm cannon. From games, I figure that is only good for about two or three good squirts. After that, it was left with only two rifle caliber machine guns.
With two rifle caliber MGs, you can basically shoot at a Wildcat just about all day without causing severe damage, especially if you shoot from behind. The tactic of the US pilots was simply to ignore whoever was on their tail and shoot planes off of others' tails. They generally had plenty of ammunition to do this, especially with the 4 gun F4F-3.
As for general flight discipline, American pilots had working radios on board. Japanese typically did not. Their radios were so unreliable that they were often left off the aircraft. Coordinating via hand signals and aerobatics in the middle of a dogfight doesn't work all that well. Another advantage of US versus Japanese pilots was that US pilots fought in pairs with a single wingman. Japanese typically had a leader with TWO wingmen.
Regarding the A6M2 versus A6M5 versions of the Zero fighter, there really isn't that much difference between the two. The biggest advantage I can see is that the A6M5a carried over twice the number of cannon rounds and a much superior cannon as versus A6M2. Diving speed was also increased significantly, but other performance factors hardly changed.
- Ivan.
One on One, the Mitsubishi A6M2 would easily beat either the F4F-3 or the F4F-4. The F4F-3 was the superior of the two. The advantage of the Wildcat showed up when the fight was many versus many. The A6M2 only carried 60 rounds for each of its 20 mm cannon. From games, I figure that is only good for about two or three good squirts. After that, it was left with only two rifle caliber machine guns.
With two rifle caliber MGs, you can basically shoot at a Wildcat just about all day without causing severe damage, especially if you shoot from behind. The tactic of the US pilots was simply to ignore whoever was on their tail and shoot planes off of others' tails. They generally had plenty of ammunition to do this, especially with the 4 gun F4F-3.
As for general flight discipline, American pilots had working radios on board. Japanese typically did not. Their radios were so unreliable that they were often left off the aircraft. Coordinating via hand signals and aerobatics in the middle of a dogfight doesn't work all that well. Another advantage of US versus Japanese pilots was that US pilots fought in pairs with a single wingman. Japanese typically had a leader with TWO wingmen.
Regarding the A6M2 versus A6M5 versions of the Zero fighter, there really isn't that much difference between the two. The biggest advantage I can see is that the A6M5a carried over twice the number of cannon rounds and a much superior cannon as versus A6M2. Diving speed was also increased significantly, but other performance factors hardly changed.
- Ivan.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Good point about the radios, Ivan. That was the most vital part of the "team" doctrine - that's what made coordination and flight cohesiveness possible even in the fog of war.
Besides the increased ammo capacity and better armament, the M5 had stronger wing construction and better protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks, which was the 'Achilles heel' of the M2. While it was still considered fragile in comparison to the robust ruggedness of the Wildcat, these factors proved to be significant. An outgunned and outnumbered M5 pilot had a better chance of making it home after taking a beating. The damage profile of the stock CFS2 A6M5 doesn't reflect this. Its nothing more than a duplication of the stock M2 in terms of durability - a one burst kill.
Besides the increased ammo capacity and better armament, the M5 had stronger wing construction and better protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks, which was the 'Achilles heel' of the M2. While it was still considered fragile in comparison to the robust ruggedness of the Wildcat, these factors proved to be significant. An outgunned and outnumbered M5 pilot had a better chance of making it home after taking a beating. The damage profile of the stock CFS2 A6M5 doesn't reflect this. Its nothing more than a duplication of the stock M2 in terms of durability - a one burst kill.
tonybones2112
Charter Member
Having read every account of the Pacific War published up to 1985, I came to the conclusions Jiro Hirikoshi and Saburo Sakai came to: The Zero was a flash in the pan that cut a murderous swath across the Pacific and Asia due to the extremely brutal but effective training of the Japanese Navy pilots though Army training was no less brutal, and as the aggressor, Japan had the technological edge at the beginning of the war and were unable to knock out the industrial capacity of the people they attacked.. The fact is the pilots were the most effective piece of equipment built into the Zero. The Zero was a rapier' thrashing through some clumsily wielded broadswords until Allied pilot training and material superiority caught up. Saki's downing of four additional planes with sight in only one eye, Kinsuki Muto and Nishizawa's victories on into early 1944 were examples of this pilot training in the early war years. Attrition of the original PH attack pilots at the Coral Sea and Midway with inferior replacements demonstrated the insufficiency of wartime pilot training among the Japanese. There were exceptions, such as Akamatsu, who attacked and successfully had dogfights with Mustangs in RAIDENS, but not enough of them. The Japanese drew first blood but were not able to keep up with the technological advances of the Allied air forces. The Japanese favored the One Great Blow of the samurai, and depended on their teishen(spirit) to lead them on to victory, exhibited by the human wave charges on Guadalcanal. This pilot superiority was plainly seen in the Brewster Buffalo being fish in a barrel in the Pacific while they scored effective and impressive victories over the poorly trained Russian pilots by the better trained and more aggressive Finns.
Bonesimoto:salute:
Bonesimoto:salute:
Ghostrider
Charter Member 2012
I'll take this a step further: Western cultural values of teamwork and value for life showed through in tactics (radios, team oriented, and mutually supportive tactics) aircraft design (armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.), and in the tremendous efforts expended in SAR of downed pilots.
The Japanese were more into the Bushido mystique - idealizing the lightly armored, agile, invincible individual hero who had no qualms whatever about dying for his cause. His 'superior fighting spirit' (read: readiness to die) would carry the day against superior numbers, equipment, firepower, and industrial capacity, so they were told, so they believed.
No value judgments here - just commenting on two very different different cultures who clashed in the Pacific War. The relative merits of the two arguments were decided on the battlefield. Culture in post-war Japan is very different than it was pre-war, I would say to the good. They learned the lessons of that conflict well. Just MHO.
The Japanese were more into the Bushido mystique - idealizing the lightly armored, agile, invincible individual hero who had no qualms whatever about dying for his cause. His 'superior fighting spirit' (read: readiness to die) would carry the day against superior numbers, equipment, firepower, and industrial capacity, so they were told, so they believed.
No value judgments here - just commenting on two very different different cultures who clashed in the Pacific War. The relative merits of the two arguments were decided on the battlefield. Culture in post-war Japan is very different than it was pre-war, I would say to the good. They learned the lessons of that conflict well. Just MHO.
now of guys japan is very anti war with anime like mobile suite Gundam witch more like WW2 with giant robots XD still some anime fans think that Japanese anime is superior to US animation much like the Japanese thought they where against the US in WW2 but when it all comes down to it's a matter of very different cultures and taste in the end it's a tie where nobody wins we lose more out of war and gain less lives
the way i see it's like that old saying "period before the fallen" or my personal one saying "they thought they where superior and the world answered by kicking their but for it" no offense to the Japanese and sorry if I got off topic somewhere in this
the way i see it's like that old saying "period before the fallen" or my personal one saying "they thought they where superior and the world answered by kicking their but for it" no offense to the Japanese and sorry if I got off topic somewhere in this
Perhaps the answer to every "which was best" should always include the pilot, tactics and mission. In the latter part of the airwar in the ETO German pilots were massacred because of thire lack of training and skills. Also, a good pilot in an average airplane should be able to down an average pilot in a good plane. On August 8, 1942 9 F4F's were shot down for the loss of 2 Zeros off Guadalcanal. The Navy pilots were outnumbered and out classed; their opponents were the famous Tinian Air Group, one of Japans very best. The F4F pilots used poor tactics and it seems tried to dogfight the Zeros. But, the Zeros were escorting Bettys whose mission was to destroy the invasion fleet. Almost a quarter of the Bettys were shot down or didn't return to base and they manage to score only one hit on a destroyer. So you have to ask "who succeded in their mission?" Interestingly, the Japanese level bombers, dive bombers and torpedo bombers always demonstrated a high level of discipline and teamwork.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Roger that Hern...but the group name was "Tainan" and they were reportedly the only real cream left in the IJN air forces after their Midway beatdown. Those guys were fearsome. Fortunately for allied forces, they were heavily depleted after the New Guinea and Guadalcanal campaigns due to attrition and were subsequently redesignated as the 251st AG and reconstituted with lesser pilots. The remaining survivors of the first team were shipped back to Japan to serve as flight instructors.
Yeah, and that air battle...that was an interesting story and it must have been one helluva furball with Bettys, Zeros, Wildcats and Dauntlesses mixing it up over the Slot.
Yeah, and that air battle...that was an interesting story and it must have been one helluva furball with Bettys, Zeros, Wildcats and Dauntlesses mixing it up over the Slot.
FWIW, I believe that the premise that started this discussion may not be valid. The claim was that in the book "The First Team", in a particular encounter, 15 Zeros were shot down as compared to 10 Wildcats lost.
In reading through many combat reports and often reading the report of the same encounter from the other side, what one can gather is that reporting of one's own losses is generally accurate. Reporting of opponents shot down is generally off by a factor of 3. Sometimes it is higher, sometimes lower, but generally it averages around 3 claims for every enemy plane destroyed. Thus unless things are very messed up, generally each side thinks that it won the encounter with many more kills inflicted on the "bad guys".
Regarding the Japanese Zero, the common characteristic of the plane across ALL models was that it was too lightly built. With the engines that were available to Japan at the time (around 900 HP), it met all of the requirements for speed and range by having a very light structure and being very aerodynamic. Because of this light structure, it had no development potential because the airframe did not have enough strength designed in to take higher air loads. Thus it needed thicker skin on the wings just to bring it past 400 mph IAS in a dive.
Regarding the A6M5 versus A6M2, although the statistics were better for the A6M5 (and I modeled my A6M5 to the claimed performance), the actual performance in the field was probably not substantially different. The USN Tests show both of these versions of the Zero to be capable of 331-332 mph, which is well below the 351 mph typically listed for the A6M5.
- Ivan.
In reading through many combat reports and often reading the report of the same encounter from the other side, what one can gather is that reporting of one's own losses is generally accurate. Reporting of opponents shot down is generally off by a factor of 3. Sometimes it is higher, sometimes lower, but generally it averages around 3 claims for every enemy plane destroyed. Thus unless things are very messed up, generally each side thinks that it won the encounter with many more kills inflicted on the "bad guys".
Regarding the Japanese Zero, the common characteristic of the plane across ALL models was that it was too lightly built. With the engines that were available to Japan at the time (around 900 HP), it met all of the requirements for speed and range by having a very light structure and being very aerodynamic. Because of this light structure, it had no development potential because the airframe did not have enough strength designed in to take higher air loads. Thus it needed thicker skin on the wings just to bring it past 400 mph IAS in a dive.
Regarding the A6M5 versus A6M2, although the statistics were better for the A6M5 (and I modeled my A6M5 to the claimed performance), the actual performance in the field was probably not substantially different. The USN Tests show both of these versions of the Zero to be capable of 331-332 mph, which is well below the 351 mph typically listed for the A6M5.
- Ivan.
Shadow Wolf 07
SOH-CM-2025
This is a very good expression of how I've learned to understand the relationship of these two planes... And just like in the P-40 vs A6M2, so much depended on the tactics and discipline of the pilots. Sometimes a good defense can wear down a great offense.
Because the USN had a higher ratio of fighters to bombers than the IJN on their carriers, They were able to overwhelm IJN defensive CAP on a strike with slightly superior numbers. And when a strike was out, more planes remained to defend the USN carriers than the incoming IJN bombers had with them. The USN was then able to do something else the IJN could not do at the time of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz: they could vector CAP fighters to the incoming targets by radar (though not always perfectly) to defend the task forces. That slight, tactical numerical superiority on attack and defense, coupled with radar vectoring were force multipliers for the Wildcats that could help make it look better "statistically."