Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
I have read about these axis planes and heard they were good. Now the question is who will come out the victor in a dogfight.
A6M2 Zero Vs. ME 109
- Thread starter Vassili Zaitzev
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Under 300 mph - the zero, and this depends on pilot skill...
Vassili Zaitzev said:
In a dogfight ? I would think that no smart pilot (from and nation in any WW2 plane) would ever "dogfight" a Zero. Most often a dogfight is at lower speeds (under 300mph) and this is where the Zero excelled. Not sure if and mono-wing plane could match the Zero's maneuverability in a "dogfight". But that USA pilots learned that and never tried to dogfight it. They used that and waive tactics and hit and run. Dogfighting a Zero under 300mph (where most dogfights happen) was suicide. SO to answer you, mostly the Zero under 300 mph and above 300 the 109, but like Joe says the pilot skills play a huge part also. Also depends on who gets the first attack, in a head on attack the 109 stands a better chance of winning.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
About the only monoplanes that cold match the Zero were certain other Japanese types (Ki-43-I, A5M and Ki-27), the Soviet I-16 and possibly the Polish Pz.11. None of these planes had the speed, climb, range or heavy armament of the Zero though, so the Zero wins out overall.
The earliest Zeros would be faced with 109Fs, which had a 60mph advantage in speed and better than 500 feet/minute advantage in climb and superior engine power at altitude. The Zero would have to sucker the 109s into low level, horizontal turn fight. Above about 310 mph the Zero suffered from EXTREEMLY heavy alierons and quite heavy elevators. All that low speed manouverability came from very large alierons and elevators, which hamper high speed manouvers.
The earliest Zeros would be faced with 109Fs, which had a 60mph advantage in speed and better than 500 feet/minute advantage in climb and superior engine power at altitude. The Zero would have to sucker the 109s into low level, horizontal turn fight. Above about 310 mph the Zero suffered from EXTREEMLY heavy alierons and quite heavy elevators. All that low speed manouverability came from very large alierons and elevators, which hamper high speed manouvers.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You also have to think about fighting in the vertical - again I think the 109 will come out ahead...
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
I fully agree. We should also remember that the advantage of the Bf-109F will increase as height increases. This wan't a problem in the Pacific or Eastern Front, where combats took place below 15000 ft, but in Western Europe...
The Bf-109F is also better protected and has self-sealing fuel tanks, and is superior in diving.
Regards.
- Thread starter
- #8
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
Thanks for your opinions guys.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Jabberwocky said:
Dont forget the Reggiane Re.2000, which would give it a good run for its money...the poor armament may let it down, but on a Zero at least the 2x 12.7mm will still do enough damage.
The range is far inferior, but in a pure dogfight, range wouldnt count for so much...
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
I wonder how the Yak's, Macchi's and Spit/Hurri's fit in?
I know later Itaian fighters had MG 151/20's, changing the armament from crap to great.
I know later Itaian fighters had MG 151/20's, changing the armament from crap to great.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
3 MG151s to be precise
werent the British dudes uing Hurricanes when they got slaughtered by Zeros?
werent the British dudes uing Hurricanes when they got slaughtered by Zeros?
loomaluftwaffe said:
Yeah in Ceylon, with MkII(b, i think) Hurricanes, the whole thing was a shambles though as they never had much chance.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/ceylon2.html
They also operated in Burma and later with the AVG I think.
BF109 has massive armament though, imagine what those Mk108s or 103s would do to a Zero, even one shell
- Thread starter
- #13
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
the british in Singapore were also using F2A buffalo fighters against the zero, I don't think the buffalos had much of a a chance against the Zekes, it can down to the pilot.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Brits didn't fare well against the Zero because of tactics - and many of the aircraft they encountered over Burma were actually Oscars...
True. Even the first Spitfires to enter the CBI in 1943 had to get used to the Japanese turners. But quickly overcame, and left the CBI with an 8:1 kill ratio.
The RAF in the early years were using everything they could get their hands on. And if you look closely it still wasn't as bad as it's made out. Sure, the RAF had to retreat but the Japanese suffered some heavy loss at their hands.
The RAF in the early years were using everything they could get their hands on. And if you look closely it still wasn't as bad as it's made out. Sure, the RAF had to retreat but the Japanese suffered some heavy loss at their hands.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
The difficult thing is to find the real figures of the A6M2, since the currently reported ones seems to be underrated (if they are real, every early series italian fighter was a better climber and a far better diver).schwarzpanzer said:
My impression is that, in 1940, a Zero could outeverything a Macchi C-200, with the only possible exceptions of high speed turn and dive speed.
In early 1941, the advent of C-202 changed the things. It's prestations were far superior to that of any Zero, apart for the turn rate at slow speed (and certanly the range), it was rugged and well armoured, and the armament was sufficient counter an unarmoured fighter.
The "5 series" fighters were another thing.
A close dogfight between a Re-2000 and a Zero could be very interesting.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
like how much range does the Re.2000 GA (grande autonomia = extended range) have
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
With internal fuel only, 1935 km (1201 miles) at 430 Km/h (267 ml/h) at 6000m (20.000 ft) with the maximum takeoff weight.
The maximum speed was reduced of 10 Km/h, to 520 Km/h.
The catapultabile version had a maximum range, in the same conditions of speed and quote, of 1290 km (801 ml).
The maximum speed was reduced of 10 Km/h, to 520 Km/h.
The catapultabile version had a maximum range, in the same conditions of speed and quote, of 1290 km (801 ml).
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Moving away from the hardware fixation for a moment we must realize that from 1940-mid-1942 there were no better airmen than those of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was the time that Sakai, Sasai, Nishizawa and the rest of the best ran wild in the Zero with instances of skilled opposition as rare.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Twitch said:
Very True - it seems starting at Midway (June 42) and into the summer months, the USN and USAAF figured out how to effectively challenge the Zero (and other Japanese aircraft), this is apparent in the kills that were starting to mount by the summers' end.
Many of Japan's best were lost at Midway...
