A6M2 Zero Vs. ME 109

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Just to add to these comments. I don't think the early years that the Japanese pilots were "better" or USA planes were bad. As you said many times Joe the Wildcat was a decent plane, able to take on the Zero or 109E if flown right. True the USA pilots were green compared to Japanese pilots who had experience over China but there is more to this than that. What allowed the Zero and the Japanese pilots to do as well as they did was the following IMHO. Japanese used WW1 style flying tatics and the Zero was suited for this. USA pilots started out using the same tatics (ie the term they used was "never ever dogfight a Zero") in planes not suited to a turning dogfight. Once the USA pilots started using the correct tatics then they started taking it to the Japanese pilots and Zeros. All of this is just IMHO. Thanks
 

The problems with the Japanese wasn't their planes or their pilots - most fighter pilots that fought in both the ETO and the Pacific thought the Pacific was the harder of the two. The problem of the Japanese was their attitude!

1. They thought they were the best possible fighter pilots.
2. They looked on their fighters like swords, a light fast personal wepon, and secondary to the pilot who would weild it.

This led to a small but very good cadre of fighter pilots with excellent aircraft at the start of the war. The Allies learned quickly that their deficiencies in both aircraft and fighter quality were mitigated with team work, then set out to increase both. The Japanese attitude of single combat and the plane as a personal wepon froze tactics, even though they had proven ineffective. Worse, the assumption that the aircraft was no more than a sword waiting for its master to weild precluded quick or radical upgrades to their aircraft, ie a sword is a sword.

Another thing that affected things was the placement of the very best pilots on carriers. First we changed tactics to minimize their effectiveness, then overwelmed them from both a tactical and an equipment standpoint, then at midway, and other places their carriers were sunk and the pilots drowned.

wmaxt
 
Well here is my take on the subject.

The Zero above 300 mph was not the all great dog fighter and that was proven by the US Navy. The Bf-109 would turn better than a Zero above 300mph. It can outclimb a Zero. It has better armour protection than a zero and it has better armament than the Zero.

Bf-109 hands down.
 


100% agree
 
So do I, unless the BF-109 was suckered into a low speed dogfight where teh Zero excelled then it stand a very good chance. However it is all down to the pilots...
 
From 1940 when the Zero entered service to around mid-1942 the IJN pilots with the Zeke WERE the best in the world. Doesn't matter that they were a small group like the Luftwaffe and that the American "good to very good" pilots produced in greater numbers would do the job.

Continually fixating on hardware is a mistake. This over and under 300MPH makes no sense either because no IJN pilot would be continually fighting above 300 where his plane was at a disadvantage due to aileron stiffness. If you take the pilot out of the equation you have nothing. The ubiquitous "pilots of equal skill" factor is bogus too since we're creating a fantasy in a vacuum.
 
While considering hardware and pilot skill I take in consideration the actual combat numbers - For the entire 1942 combat year the FEAF lost 148 fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 fighter aircraft = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the IJN or JAAF. That's history!!!

And also consider the USN had a similar record after Midway while flying the F4F...

P-38s were entering the scene in late December 1942 so these numbers mainly come from P-39s, P-400s and P-40. We could throw in the fact that the best of the Japanese pilots were on scene during this period but the bottom line the IJN and JAAF did not do as well against US forces as history leads us to believe despite touting the Nishizawas, Iwamotos and Sakais (nothing against them). The US were beating back the IJN and JAAF with P-40s P-39s and P-400s (F4Fs for the USN) and the numbers prove it. Now one could challenge the accuracy of FEAF kill confirmation processes and try to compare them with Japanese losses, but I guess that's for another thread....

Consider the aircraft, pilot skill and the way history actually played out....
 
If you want to discuss pilot skill then that is one item, if you want to talk planes that is another. If you want to cover both then that is a third.

Assuming that you want to talk about 109 vs Zero then its the 109 all the way. It had speed, armour, weapons, dive speed and above all, that gives it, the initiative. The plane without the initiative (Zero) will spend most of its time on the defensive and in the long run will lose.

If you want to include the pilots in the 109 and the Zero, then again its the Germans who will come out on top. They had been at war for two years against the RAF and that experience would have been vital.

German tactics were better than the Japenese (and initially the British) with the finger 4 formation and better communications (better radios). The Germans were also used to not dogfighting, using their speed to initiate combat and to evade a more agile foe.

So however you look at it, the 109 is better than the Zero.
 
True but the sort of combat they met over China doesn't compare to the German airforce's experience against the RAF. Totally different ball game.

Also the Japs lost to the Russians and still didn't change their tactics on land or in the air, never could work that one out.
 
There's simply too many variables to realistically compare hardware tit for tat. Who is flying? Where? What altitude? What terrain is below? What's the weather like? Who has the advantage at the start of this ficticious combat?
 
Twitch said:
There's simply too many variables to realistically compare hardware tit for tat. Who is flying? Where? What altitude? What terrain is below? What's the weather like? Who has the advantage at the start of this ficticious combat?
Click to expand...

Agree - "Consider the aircraft, pilot skill and the way history actually played out."

Need to throw luck in there as well.......
 
Sal Monella said:
What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?
Click to expand...
From an earlier quote by wmaxt...

"The Japanese attitude of single combat and the plane as a personal wepon froze tactics, even though they had proven ineffective. Worse, the assumption that the aircraft was no more than a sword waiting for its master to weild precluded quick or radical upgrades to their aircraft, ie a sword is a sword."

I think they still would of got smoked....
 
Sal Monella said:
What if the Japs had Mc-202's instead of Zeros?
Click to expand...
They couldn't launch an aeronaval operation.
The C-202 was a good fighter for ETO, but it didn't fit PTO's needs, it's range was too short, and even if it could be launched by a carrier, with it's fixed wings it would have taken a lot of space over it.

Regarding at the prestations only, the C-202 could have been a big surprise for P-40 and wildcats' pilots, especially if the japanese managed to solve it's only flaw, replacing the two 7,7 mm wing-mounted machineguns with a 20mm gun firing through the spinner.
 

Agreed, said very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
861
Ivan1GFP
I
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
751
Jerrybandit67
J
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register