Corsair vs Zero

[bakters]

So I'd say that Hellcat with 3 drop tanks has more range and radius than any Zero.

More ferry range, maybe. Combat radius should not change, until Hellcat is capable of fighting with a droptank. But more important than lofty figures is actual practice. We know for sure that Zekes could reach and fight over Guadalcanal while escorting bombers, which is almost 500 nm (483 nm in a straight line). That's actual practice, not theory. And we know it was not the absolute extreme, because of Sakai. Actual practice for Hellcats was much more modest, well below the theoretical radius. (I want to write 250-ish nm, but I'm nowhere near sure about it.)

Could you please double-check the stall speed for the Zero you've provided? The similarly small light F2A was at ~65 kt. At any rate, the Hellcat was praised for it's low speed handling, due to it's big wing being outfitted with 'extendable' flaps, similar to the Fowler-type.

You are right, the number I previously found is fantasy. More typically people quote around 66 mph landing speed, which is 57 kt. Still a significant advantage for the Zeke, but not a crushing one. (Hellcat number seems to be correct.)

Depends what is the target and who is the marksman. Whether the Hellcat lands bullet on the fuel tank, engine or the cockpit, the Zero is killed. Having 6 HMGs, each on it's own capable to icapacitate the Zero, gives the chances for an not-so-good marksman. The zero's cannons were useful, especially those belt-fed more powerful variants of the Oerlikon FFL were aboard. Shortcoming was the lower total RoF (1500 rpm vs. 4800 rpm) and, much greater problem, the ammo carried (100 rpg for the belt fed cannon, vs. 400 rpg)

Everybody went for cannon armed fighters for a reason. It's not like they don't work, and I read in this thread that the Zeke was worse also in this regard, while it carried more firepower than most Bf109s, most Soviet fighters and not much less than most Spits. Not many fighters limped home with a 20mm hole anywhere.

All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened.
With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.

While I agree that Reisen is not the best plane to take out heavy strategic bombers, they managed to do that. It's not like you could take B-17 and do an unobstructed attack on a tactical level with Reisens flying around, and it's also not as any other fighter of the war was guaranteed to take out this bomber without any troubles. Germans for example tried ramming at some point.
BTW - how well Hellcats and Corsairs would do against such target? In my opinion worse, simply because of 50 cals. You need a sustained and localized burst to achieve the result of a single shell. Hard to do while trying not to die.

Regarding Midway - Japanese lost, because they decided to refuel their fighters at the wrong moment, did they not? Hardly the Zeke's fault if they didn't leverage its greatest asset...

It was outclassed. This might be of interest.

How so? It climbs better or the same at least where it counts, it truly outclasses the Hellcat in maneuverability while having slower top-speed. Top-speed is nice to have, but it does not predict the actual combat speed all that well. Energy retention in maneuvers, acceleration and climbing performance tend to be better predictors of which aircraft is actually faster when engaging the enemy.

It could be argued that a Hellcat outperforms a Zeke. I could see this working (although personally I rather disagree than agree), but outclasses? It makes no sense at all.

 

[bakters]

You really seem to be entrenched in the idea that the Zero was invinsable, even to the end.

If I'm entrenched anywhere, that would be in my conviction that a well flown Reisen was a very dangerous opponent. Yes, until the very end of the war. I do believe that people who downplay its abilities show disrespect to those guys who had to take on her. A Zeke is never defenseless, it's never safe to be around her. Maybe if she's parked, but I'm not so sure about it either.

What??
Show me one aircraft, U.S. or otherwise that used concrete as armor. The IL-2 and the Hs129 used a hardened steel "bathtub" to protect their pilot. Other types used a hardened steel plate behind the pilot, like the P-47, etc.

Concrete was a hyperbole. IL2s were well armored, but slow as snails. Exactly what's ordered when you are supposed to attack ground targets while tanking AA fire. Fighters were not armored to a significant degree, and none carried enough armor to defeat a 20mm. For example, armored backrest could kill the pilot. A shell that would otherwise miss would explode into the cockpit. 50 cal from the front could injure or kill the pilot due to spalling even if it missed.

Was it worth it? I don't know. Probably yes since everybody did it, especially when dealing with bombers or taking some flak. But it's not like the Japanese were totally suicidal here.

The A6M was developed from the A5M, it was an excellent design for it's time and delivered results beyond the designer and the IJN's expectations. However, it did not mature like it's contemporaries of the time, such as the Bf109 and the Spitfire. It became a dead end as other more improved Japanese types were being introduced. The only way to improve the A6M to be competitive and have survivability in the face of the newer Allied types, would be to improve it's engine output as well as introduce armor and self sealing tanks, for which it was not designed...this would mean a complete redesign. As it happens, the Japanese were intoducting new types and it didn't make sense to go to all that trouble to rebuild the Zero when better options were becoming available.

I know the "official" story, I just happen not to believe it 100%. For example, if A6M2 could deal with Spits Vc, which were comparable or better in performance to Hellcats and Corsairs (you wouldn't say that a Corsair outclassed Vc, would you?), then A6M5s must at the very least remain competitive.

So the A6M was literally becoming extinct as the war drug on, because all the experienced pilots were getting the newer, more formidable Japanese types or they were being killed. In addition, the newer replacement pilots were not getting the training needed to survive the increasing numbers of Allied pilots.

Land based fighter does not need to crawl through air before it lands. You can make different compromises, especially if you are being bombed. No surprises they went "German" way, they faced similar threats. But since you can't "strategically bomb" a carrier, in this role A6M was still effective.
USA slaughtered Zeroes later on, because Japanese sent total rookies on one-way missions against overwhelming odds. Not because she was useless.

 

[tomo pauk]

More ferry range, maybe. Combat radius should not change, until Hellcat is capable of fighting with a droptank. But more important than lofty figures is actual practice. We know for sure that Zekes could reach and fight over Guadalcanal while escorting bombers, which is almost 500 nm (483 nm in a straight line). That's actual practice, not theory. And we know it was not the absolute extreme, because of Sakai. Actual practice for Hellcats was much more modest, well below the theoretical radius. (I want to write 250-ish nm, but I'm nowhere near sure about it.)

The Allied data for the Zero matches what was achieved in reality. By same token, we can be sure that US data for the Corsair with 300 gals in drop tanks will match what was the it capable for in reality. Nobody will fight in the Hellcat with a drop tank attached to it, but at least the F6F-5 will arive to the combat area with all of it's 250 gals of internal fuel, being outfitted with a pump to top off the internal fuel tank(s) with fuel from drop tanks, where actually 450 gals could be carried for 700 gals total, not 600 as I've wrote earlier. The Hellcat has 10% more fuel on internal tanks than Corsair, that should cover the eventualities.
We can guess all day, what matter are the figures from back then.

Everybody went for cannon armed fighters for a reason. It's not like they don't work, and I read in this thread that the Zeke was worse also in this regard, while it carried more firepower than most Bf109s, most Soviet fighters and not much less than most Spits. Not many fighters limped home with a 20mm hole anywhere.

I'm all for cannons, no problem with that, nobody said they don't work. A fighter holed by 20 mm shell still can still allow it's pilot to ditch near the friendly forces/territory, Hellcat being in a better position than most of the ww2 fighters. At least the pilot can jump and use the parachute. With the Zero, a burst of heavy MG fire that hit home will likely set the aircraftf ablaze or kill the pilot immediately.
The fact that cannon ammo on count on the Zero was low still stands, as well as the total RoF.

While I agree that Reisen is not the best plane to take out heavy strategic bombers, they managed to do that. It's not like you could take B-17 and do an unobstructed attack on a tactical level with Reisens flying around, and it's also not as any other fighter of the war was guaranteed to take out this bomber without any troubles. Germans for example tried ramming at some point.

The B-17s were used on tactical level in the Pacific, even for low level bombing of the ships. The Zero has no armor to withstand the defensive fire, and it's top speed was in 1942-45 same as what the Spitfire and Bf-109 were capable in 1939. Of the anti-bomber triade - firepower, speed, protection - the Zero has maybe 1.5.
The Germans found that even 4 x 20mm don't guarantee the kill on the B-17, going for the 30mm. Japanese also went for the 30mm, Zero never got these. Again - no B-17s were killed by Zeros during the Midway.

BTW - how well Hellcats and Corsairs would do against such target? In my opinion worse, simply because of 50 cals. You need a sustained and localized burst to achieve the result of a single shell. Hard to do while trying not to die.

They will have the speed to position them into any firing position they find most favorable, while being reasonably protected from the defensive fire. Can do the head-on pass to kill the crew at front half of the bomber. Don't like the 6 HMGs? Okay, then 4 cannons on the F4U, 2 cannons + 4 HMGs in the F6F.

Regarding Midway - Japanese lost, because they decided to refuel their fighters at the wrong moment, did they not? Hardly the Zeke's fault if they didn't leverage its greatest asset...

You're wrong on the 1st sentence, IJN lost because of strategical mistakes, that dwarfed any technical or servicemen issues. Nobody is blaming the Zero, despite being not the ideal fleet defender.

How so? It climbs better or the same at least where it counts, it truly outclasses the Hellcat in maneuverability while having slower top-speed. Top-speed is nice to have, but it does not predict the actual combat speed all that well. Energy retention in maneuvers, acceleration and climbing performance tend to be better predictors of which aircraft is actually faster when engaging the enemy.
It could be argued that a Hellcat outperforms a Zeke. I could see this working (although personally I rather disagree than agree), but outclasses? It makes no sense at all.

You can interprete the report as you wish, I guess.

 

[bakters]

IfThe protection of fuel tanks would've eaten into the fuel volume, thus reducing the range/radius, not a great proposal for the IJN.

Would it stop a leak from a direct 50 cal. hit?

As for the comment 'weel, it's war' - the line of thinking that pilots don't need protection was proven as faulty. Pilots, especially well trained and experienced don't just grow on trees.

Can they swim 200 nm home? If not, not many will be saved by armor protection. Sometimes they didn't even take chutes. Faster that way, I guess.

The table I've provided the link notes that only Zero (both marks listed) does not feature any pilot or fuel tank protection, and it actaully meant it was obsolete.

At worst it means that her fuel tanks were obsolete. It's not like installing rubber baloons requires a major redesign.

Protection is not just there to protect from the hits from eemy fighters, it can save a day vs. the bomber defensive fire.

Yes, but people tend to make such a big deal out of it. Sure it helps a little, but an armored fighter is still very fragile.

The reinforced concrete armor in the aircraft is a good joke The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.

So, how many came back home with 20mm holes in them? For comparison, I read an interview with a Russian pilot who fought through the war. He remembered very few such cases. He managed to do it once, but the shell ripped a hole in his wing. Hellcat didn't have armored wings, so it does not change much.

I'm not trying to say that armor is totally useless. It saves people, it comforts them too, but it's not such a big deal in the end.

Nobody is blaming exclusively the Zero for the lost air-mava battles and the outcome of Pacific war. Everybody will agree that Zero was one of the greatest fighters that took part in ww2.

Yes, I know. One of the best fighters ever, the best fighter in the war at some point and totally useless just a year later.

And it makes sense, somehow... Supposedly.

 

[bakters]

Just one quick comment on armor and survivability based on Pug-Sakai fight over Guadalcanal.

So Sakai unloaded a long stream of bullets into Pug's 'cat, but the plane remained airborne. Sakai is impressed. Such a strong plane! Of course the 'cat barely flies, so Sakai takes careful aim and takes out two cylinders from 'cat's P&W (they found the engine). Plane goes down, Pug miraculously survives, comes back to States, teaches others, recovers physically and mentally and shoots some more Japanese. Success story.

Or maybe not? Because Sakai wrote that he has never experienced such mastery of flying. For him it was poetry in motion. By that I gather, that in a better plane Pug would not be an easy target at all, and maybe he would have shot Sakai down, not the other way around.

As it was, Pug's plane was damaged with WWI weaponry. Two 30 cals in the nose. The cannon brought him down, but WWI armament won the fight. Then in purely pragmatic, ruthless, Zhukov way of thinking, his miraculous survival tied up some resources on the Henderson field. He had to be taken care of, fed and evacuated and still constituted a loss.

What if he had a lighter plane? Could he win against Sakai and inflict a loss instead of becoming one? We'll never know.

 

[tomo pauk]

The USN, or every other user of fighter aircraft, never went to delete protection on their aircraft once the installing of the protection became common, judging it rightly that trained experienced pilot is the major asset. USN in particular didn't canceled out the F6F nor the F4U so it can churn out more FM-2 (while deleting the protection). The pilot in the raft boat cann be saved, the one cought in a burning aircraft is done. Saving a pilot or crew was a major thing for any air force, no matter how one want's do downplay it.
Nobody in 1943/44/45 have had a fighter with 1100 HP and no protection as the premier fighter, if it can have somehting better. So yes, by 1943 the Zero was behind the curve, in 1944 it was obsolete. For the Zero to still be competitive - install the more powerful engine earlier, not in Aug 1945, install protection of the pilot and fuel tanks while accepting the loss in internal fuel (ballanced out with either a bigger drop tank or 2 drop tank installation, or maybe an aux fuel tank behind the pilot), increase the cannon ammo at 150 rpg. Maybe install the butterfly flaps to help out with low speed behaviour, since any improvement will add weight. See whether the high speed handling can be improved.

 

[bakters]

The Allied data for the Zero matches what was achieved in reality. By same token, we can be sure that US data for the Corsair with 300 gals in drop tanks will match what was the it capable for in reality. Nobody will fight in the Hellcat with a drop tank attached to it, but at least the F6F-5 will arive to the combat area with all of it's 250 gals of internal fuel, being outfitted with a pump to top off the internal fuel tank(s) with fuel from drop tanks, where actually 450 gals could be carried for 700 gals total, not 600 as I've wrote earlier. The Hellcat has 10% more fuel on internal tanks than Corsair, that should cover the eventualities.
We can guess all day, what matter are the figures from back then.

Combat radius for Hellcat you quoted is something like 350-ish nm, while we know for sure that Zekes flown sorties from Rabaul to Henderson field. That's more than 100 nm further one way (480nm), and with a safety margin included (Sakai case).

Are you trying to tell me that now you don't believe your own data, and that "in reality" Hellcats could reach further than those 350nm round trip, even further than the Zeroes? Because I simply do not understand it all.

The B-17s were used on tactical level in the Pacific, even for low level bombing of the ships. The Zero has no armor to withstand the defensive fire, and it's top speed was in 1942-45 same as what the Spitfire and Bf-109 were capable in 1939. Of the anti-bomber triade - firepower, speed, protection - the Zero has maybe 1.5.
The Germans found that even 4 x 20mm don't guarantee the kill on the B-17, going for the 30mm. Japanese also went for the 30mm, Zero never got these. Again - no B-17s were killed by Zeros during the Midway.

Those B-17 didn't do any harm, did they?

Anyway, if you are in a slow fighter, you simply need more time, or maybe more skill, to do a decent pass. WWII instructional movie on attacking bombers I watched once showed how to do it, but it's not easy. You basically do aerobatics while you dive, a different one from every angle. It worked in gaming practice weirdly enough, or maybe unsurprisingly enough.

The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.

Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.

 

[tomo pauk]

It looks like you did not bothered to read the docs I've linked to.
The F6F-3 with one 150 gal drop tank, total of 400 gals is indeed at 335 nmi.
The F4U-4, with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks for total of 534 gals, radius of 525 nmi. The internal fuel tanks can be topped off from drop tanks after take off.
The F6F-5 can carry 3 x 150 gal d.t. for total of 700 gals. It also can top off internal fuel tanks from d.t. It has 250 gals of internal fuel, vs. 234 for the F4U-5, not really 10% more but still.
Everyone can now try to guess the radius of the Hellcat with 700 gals of fuel, whatever the figure is it won't be less than the F4U-4 that carry less fuel.

Those B-17 didn't do any harm, did they?

They helped stretching the Zero's umbrella thin. Maneuvering the carriers away from the bombes did not help out with flight operations either.
But whatever the B-17s did or did not still does not 'cure' the fact that IJN air defence system and Zero as the main ingridient were incapable to make any kills of the B-17s.

The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.
Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.

Durability allows the pilot to steady it's aim without worrying that some stray bullet will make damage to him or to it's aircraft. See both armoured and 'plain' Fw 190s, plus a host of the US fighters.
If one slowly gains on the bomber, the tail gunner will have a far better chance to make impression than what it would be the case with a faster fighter. There was a reason why airforces insisted in training the side attacks, where the gunners have had far a demanding target.

BTW:

I know the "official" story, I just happen not to believe it 100%. For example, if A6M2 could deal with Spits Vc, which were comparable or better in performance to Hellcats and Corsairs (you wouldn't say that a Corsair outclassed Vc, would you?), then A6M5s must at the very least remain competitive.

Care to toss some good numbers that would back up the bolded part, namely that Spitfire Vc (out of all Spitfires one can choose) was better or comparable vs. Hellcat and Corsair?

 

[Aozora]

Anyway, if you are in a slow fighter, you simply need more time, or maybe more skill, to do a decent pass. WWII instructional movie on attacking bombers I watched once showed how to do it, but it's not easy. You basically do aerobatics while you dive, a different one from every angle. It worked in gaming practice weirdly enough, or maybe unsurprisingly enough.

The point of it all, if you can gain on the bomber, you can harm it. The faster you are, the faster you will gain and the more passes you can do in whatever time you have, but you can manage in a slower fighter too. More patience is all.

The longer it takes to pursue and overtake a bomber, the more chance there is that the bomber's defensive firepower will harm your aircraft and you - particularly if the bomber being pursued is in a tight formation with others. The Zero's lack of armour and fuel tank protection made it extremely vulnerable to return .50 cal fire

Durability can be offset by maneuverability even in this case, at least to some extent.

How can low speed maneuverability (which is what the Zero excelled at - at speeds above 300 mph, the Zero quickly lost any edge in maneuverability) save you when you are pursuing at high speed, then steadying to shoot? While your Zero is making pretty maneuvers it is losing speed and unable to get into a shooting position.

Read these reports:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwbgo0lWwg


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MjYTnUH1LE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2eFXvQyVx0

This video shows the reality of how the Zero fared in high-speed combat against the F6F; the only time the Zero gained any advantage is when the American pilots were foolish enough to get into low speed dogfights (the same applies to the F4U):


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmtc1HnwMeQ

 

[parsifal]

regarding the range issue, whatever the published figures, the reality is that carrier strikes strikes from US carriers never exceeded 240 nm if they involved F6f and/or F4U. the reason these strike distances were so constrained relates to a number of reasons, form up times, having to escort strike aircraft at less than optimal speeds and/or altitudes.

by comparison the effective combat radius off carriers for the zeke could be as high as 350 nm. but the truth is they also seldom were able to strike at that distance. You need to have a sighting report in order for the airstrike to be launched, and often the strike had to be held back until sightings were confirmed. The most significant occasion where the Japanese got the range drop on the US was at Phil Sea, and ended very badly for them. by late that day the range was down to under the 240nm which allowed the US to retaliate, though the numbers of fighters that could be included was constrained for the americans.

 

[Hiromachi]

Oh boy, what a discussion. I love that. I only wanted to say at the beginning that any sim duel (which I presume is bakters situation) reflects little to none realism, while situations when 1 vs 1 pilot were common, they were not happening in such a knightly mode with opponents at same altitude, same speed and facing each other.

In reality pilot should (and most often did) look for easiest possible firing solution without putting himself at risk. Sure, there were some crazy guys, after all those pilots were often in their early 20s, and as we all know young people have a tendency for bravery and can loose their heads in the heat of battle. But point is that an average pilot should never attempt a fight at equal terms, because that is 50-50 of winning to loosing. I'd not put my life at such risk, better come back home with no victories than come back in metal box.

So more or less what you are expecting from us is a bit of theory-crafting - trying here to apply real experiences for a purpose of artificial situation.


Afaik, there are few things that I wanted to correct or point out.

@GrauGeist

The bottom line is, that the A6M was not a mysterious beast with mythical powers, it could be beaten by the F4F and even the SBD, both of which were a great deal behind the F6F in performance.

P-38s were shot down by F1M Pete, some Soviet I-153 biplanes managed to bring down 109 fighters. It has little to do with aircraft itself, but more with pilot awareness and tactical positioning. If you catch someone pants down you can beat him with no effort.
That of course does not change the fact that you got him, hence credited victory is fully deserved.

The A6M had a max. speed of a little over 330 mph (533kph) at medium altitudes while the F6F had a max. speed of 390mph (629kph) within the same altitudes.

That would be A6M2 you are talking about. And it had maximum speed approaching 550 km/h at emergency power. If we are talking of a Hellcat however, than I'd assume that in 1943 or 1944 a more common opponent would be A6M5. That one had if I'm not mistaken speed of aprox. 560 km/h at rated power.

Compare the F6F's rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) to the A6M's: 3,100 ft/min (15.7 m/s) and you can see that the Zero's "glory days" had been eclipsed.

That is again for a specific F6F, actually in multiple accounts from 1943/1944 I've read Hellcats had problems catching Zeros due to latter superior acceleration and rate of climb. It wasn't until late F6F-3 with P&W 2800-10W with water injection that Hellcat got complete domination. Earlier ones had certain issues, while being faster they did not have such a high boost.

@tomo pauk

All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened.
With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.

Now that is a bit exaggeration to put a blame on Zeros that they did not manage to bring down B-17s flying high, when they had duties low with all the other aircraft. I'm not going to open Shattered Sword now and count but how effective Zeros could be SBD and TBD in particular are a proof.

Overall the Japanese pressed home two attacks on the American task force. They did so with forces far weaker than those the Americans threw at their carriers. Japanese had a fighter escort in each case although it was weak and partially distracted from its main task. Despite the American advantage of radar, effective anti-aircraft fire and a strong force of intercepting fighters Japanese inflicted telling damage in both strikes. Japanese losses were heavy but comparatively somewhat lower than American.

The outcome of the battle overwhelmingly favored the Americans but in specifics the Japanese often outperformed Americans. Seven of eighteen Japanese bombers attacked a radar alerted Yorktown and scored a much higher ratio of hits than the fifty American dive bombers that surprised Japanese fleet. A couple Japanese torpedo bombers managed to score two hits on the same carrier while about fort American torpedo bombers scored none on the Japanese carriers. Despite a lack of radar and relatively inferior anti-aircraft defenses, Japanese fighters essentially on their own inflicted a cruel losses on the American attackers.

It was outclassed. This might be of interest.

Well yes, but that is a November 1944 report when Japanese were more than aware of that themselves.

The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.

Well, not exactly. There is a fuze for some reason designed, and it was present in Japanese, German, British, Soviet and US 20 mm HE ammunition.

The IJN is to blame for not having at least two designs that would suceed Zero from 1943 on. Lousy output of both pilots and planes until it was too late to matter.

Well, they were working on A7M since April 1942, since that month was a meeting of Mitsubishi and Navy representatives regarding the parameters of the new aircraft. It was rather a lack of engine that hampered the design throughout the war, one simply cant forget that Japan had much smaller industrial and intellectual base than US. Engineers do not grow on trees, they must study at universities and than gain their experience working on real projects.

We can blame the IJN for not having a belt-fed cannon in the Zero already in early 1942, if not in 1941.

Well, Germans having much earlier access to Oerlikon did not come up with any belt fed mechanism. Japanese first upgraded the Oerlikon design and than worked on solving existing issues - low ammo capacity was quickly solved by introduction 100 drum magazine and all new fighters since mid 1942 had them (so A6M3 and later produced A6M2), low muzzle velocity severely reducing the range - that was solved by the end of 1942 with introduction of Type 99-2 with long barrel and a new cartridge, which basically had same flight trajectory as machine guns used in A6M. All fighters were equipped with long barrel Type 99 since December 1942 (That is A6M3 and next ...)

install the more powerful engine earlier, not in Aug 1945, install protection of the pilot and fuel tanks while accepting the loss in internal fuel (ballanced out with either a bigger drop tank or 2 drop tank installation, or maybe an aux fuel tank behind the pilot), increase the cannon ammo at 150 rpg.

All of this was attempted, thought and yet common answer was - the lack of proper engine along with drastic mass increase would make a machine perform terribly.

@Aozora

These gun camera recordings show how vulnerable the Zero's fuel tanks were: the F6F and F4U in similar circumstances didn't flame like that.

Well, they actually did. Post war surveys indicated that majority of US aircraft lost, went down due to damage to oil and fuel systems or pilots killed. Those areas, while protected, still remained most vulnerable in whole machine.
Pappy Boyington and his wingman both were shot down in flames.

 

[bakters]

It looks like you did not bothered to read the docs I've linked to.
The F6F-3 with one 150 gal drop tank, total of 400 gals is indeed at 335 nmi.
The F4U-4, with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks for total of 534 gals, radius of 525 nmi. The internal fuel tanks can be topped off from drop tanks after take off.
The F6F-5 can carry 3 x 150 gal d.t. for total of 700 gals. It also can top off internal fuel tanks from d.t. It has 250 gals of internal fuel, vs. 234 for the F4U-5, not really 10% more but still.
Everyone can now try to guess the radius of the Hellcat with 700 gals of fuel, whatever the figure is it won't be less than the F4U-4 that carry less fuel.

You are right, I didn't read those docs, and thanks for reminding me. I'm still getting used to the forum, and I simply missed those links while replying.

I finally got it. Yes, you seem to be correct here. Corsairs and Hellcats could beat the Zeke for range, at least later models. (I think I wrote before that they could probably compete with later models, but no matter. I got what you mean.)

They helped stretching the Zero's umbrella thin. Maneuvering the carriers away from the bombes did not help out with flight operations either.
But whatever the B-17s did or did not still does not 'cure' the fact that IJN air defence system and Zero as the main ingridient were incapable to make any kills of the B-17s.

Zero in general could kill and did kill B-17 at times. This time they did not, but as you write yourself, the main task of this "strategic" distraction was to distract them. They didn't get distracted to the point of chasing the bait. That's good, not?

Durability allows the pilot to steady it's aim without worrying that some stray bullet will make damage to him or to it's aircraft. See both armoured and 'plain' Fw 190s, plus a host of the US fighters.
If one slowly gains on the bomber, the tail gunner will have a far better chance to make impression than what it would be the case with a faster fighter. There was a reason why airforces insisted in training the side attacks, where the gunners have had far a demanding target.

You do not gain on a bomber within his gun's range. You fly to the side and/or get above, out of range. Once you are in front, you dive to get speed and then attack from whatever angle you wish.

Care to toss some good numbers that would back up the bolded part, namely that Spitfire Vc (out of all Spitfires one can choose) was better or comparable vs. Hellcat and Corsair?

Of course there were better Spitfires, but this one faced A6M2s over Darwin and fared really poorly.
F4U Performance Trials F4U-1 1943.
Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing
1. Armament - Spit wins. 4 Hispanos.
2. Climbing speed - Spitfire, by a landslide. 3710fpm vs. 2810fpm.
3. Top speed - Corsair, by a tad. 395mph vs. 371mph.
4. Acceleration - Spitfire.
5. Maneuverability - Spitfire
6. Speed during combat - Spitfire (better acceleration and energy retention in maneuvers).
7. Visibility - Spitfire, by a landslide.
8. Looks - Corsair. hehe, I got you, did I not? No contest here.

 

[Aozora]

Well, they actually did. Post war surveys indicated that majority of US aircraft lost, went down due to damage to oil and fuel systems or pilots killed. Those areas, while protected, still remained most vulnerable in whole machine.
Pappy Boyington and his wingman both were shot down in flames.

Of course some F4Us and F6Fs went down in flames; the point is that the A6M was far more vulnerable to hits in the fuel tanks, while the chances of the pilot surviving were far lower; the three Youtube clips highlight how quickly the Zero lit up. What we are talking about is how survivable a fighter with armour and self-sealing fuel tanks is cf a mainly unarmoured fighter (late A6M5s did have some armour) without self-sealing fuel tanks.

With limited or no armour and s-s fuel tanks, the the Zero and its pilot were far more vulnerable to all classes of weapon from greater ranges than the Corsair or Hellcat - particularly when the latter two fighters attacked at high speeds using boom and zoom tactics: being able to outmaneuver an opposing aircraft only works if you happen to see the opposition in time or if you can draw them into a maneuvering fight. And if the Zero did happen to draw the Corsair or Hellcat into such a fight it was still far more vulnerable to being hit, whereas the Corsair/Hellcat might still be able to stagger home...

Example: Ens McWhorter's Hellcat was damaged early on in his combat with Zekes in November 1943 but took the punishment while allowing McWhorter to evade and shoot down another Zeke (25 to 28 minutes into last video).

 

[bakters]

The longer it takes to pursue and overtake a bomber, the more chance there is that the bomber's defensive firepower will harm your aircraft and you - particularly if the bomber being pursued is in a tight formation with others. The Zero's lack of armour and fuel tank protection made it extremely vulnerable to return .50 cal fire

50 BMG can penetrate an inch of steel armor! There are locomotives being shot through on gun camera footage. Let's be real, OK?

How can low speed maneuverability (which is what the Zero excelled at - at speeds above 300 mph, the Zero quickly lost any edge in maneuverability) save you when you are pursuing at high speed, then steadying to shoot? While your Zero is making pretty maneuvers it is losing speed and unable to get into a shooting position.

In the second link they write that A6M5 surpasses all American fighters in maneuverability at medium speeds and altitudes. Not just slow speeds!

Read these reports:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU
This gun camera footage shows plenty of German fighters being shredded just like the Zekes you have shown. The same effects of destroyed fuel tanks and huge clouds of atomized fuel trailed behind the hit plane. Sometimes those fumes ignited, sometimes they did not.

I don't know about Corsair, but a Hellcat has wing fuel tanks? Not armored with an inch thick steel plate? Then a Hellcat can also become a fireball with a bit of bad luck and a few .50 APIs through the wing root.

This video shows the reality of how the Zero fared in high-speed combat against the F6F; the only time the Zero gained any advantage is when the American pilots were foolish enough to get into low speed dogfights (the same applies to the F4U):

It's a propaganda flick. Have you ever tried to use those "sophisticated" hit&run tactics yourself?

Because it's not as easy as it may seem. You approach at high closing speed, the other guy maneuvers and you just missed before you even pulled the trigger. It's not easy. And Zeke is not a biplane, it has speed too and it can accelerate just as well or better than contemporary American opposition. Your own report states that.

 

[GregP]

Visibility is not Spitfire by a landslide. It's almost the same. The corsair was a bit blinder on landing but, at combat speed, visibility over the nose wasn't great in either one. Off to the side or forward / rearward, the Spitfire had no advantage at all.

Maneuverability might not be so clear-cut as you think. While it is likely the Spitfire could out-pitch the Corsair, the Corsair should rather handlily out-roll the Spitfire. An advantage in one area doesn't necessarily carry over to other areas.

Top speed is Corsair by rather more than a tad.

Why would the combat speed be better for the Spitfire? The Corsair is faster and is rather good acceleration despite being perhaps a bit less than the Spitfire.

The wartime results in the Pacific fall rather firmly on the side of the Corsair if you looks at missions flown and results obtained.

Not to say the Spitfire is bad, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, but you ARE comparing a land-based mostly-European fighter against a Naval fighter that was more numerous in the Pacific and had a lot more combat encounters.

 

[bakters]

Oh boy, what a discussion. I love that. I only wanted to say at the beginning that any sim duel (which I presume is bakters situation) reflects little to none realism,

Why? I used to be a scientist, and why I'm fully aware that no model is reality, all decent models at least reflect something about it.

If a model is demonstrably inaccurate, you can make only gross estimations based on it. If it's more accurate, you can make more accurate predictions. No models are faultless, none can ever be, and none need to be faultless to be useful.

P-38s were shot down by F1M Pete, some Soviet I-153 biplanes managed to bring down 109 fighters. It has little to do with aircraft itself, but more with pilot awareness and tactical positioning. If you catch someone pants down you can beat him with no effort.

Actually, I tried I-153 against A6M2. It's not as difficult as it may seem, and I managed to shoot down the Zeke at first try despite struggling with controls on an unfamiliar plane. Basic strategy is the same as with Zeke against Corsair, that is you starve your opponent of energy, press him against the ground and make him turn in the horizontal while you use yo-yos to attack. Works well against a bot.

The other way around, me in a Zeke and a bot in a Chaika, it was more difficult, but not as difficult as when trying to shoot down a Zeke in a Corsair. I can with absolute ease gain energy advantage in a Zeke when a bot flies a Chaika. I can gain his six!, which I couldn't do in a Corsair against a Zeke. But I can't shoot the bot down easily, because AI is pretty damn good at avoidance, and a biplane is never too slow to maneuver.

But overall it's not so bad. Zeke is obviously a better fighter, but underestimate the biplane and you are a wreck. I promise you that with absolute conviction!

Well yes, but that is a November 1944 report when Japanese were more than aware of that [Zeke's being outclassed] themselves.

I don't get it. You show that even in speed A6M5 was actually comparable to Hellcats, while holding the edge in climb rate and I'm tired of replaying the maneuverability card. So how was it outclassed at the same time? Vastly improved armament, decent speed in actual combat, superior acceleration, superior or at least comparable climb rate and still outclassed?

 

[bakters]

Visibility is no Spitfire by a landslide. It's almost the same. The corsair was a bit blinder on landing but, at combat speed, visibility over the nose wasn't great in either one. Off to the side or forward / rearward, the Spitfire had no advantage at all.

Nonsense. Just try it. War Thunder is free, it has all the fighters of WWII with cockpits fully modeled. You can "fly" with mouse and keyboard, no special skills are required.

Just an x-ray feature showing internal components of every plane in the game is worth it for a history buff. Which reminds me, I need to update this game...

Top speed is Corsair by rather more than a tad.

Okay, you made me search for it.
Part 4
A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?

N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in "ideal" aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.

A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let's attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?

N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn't pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn't. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.

The whole interview is worth reading, but his explanation of what "combat speed" is just after the above quote is particularly relevant to our discussion here.

Why would the combat speed be better for the Spitfire? The Corsair is faster and is rather good acceleration despite being perhaps a bit less than the Spitfire.

Corsair is a much heavier plane. It will lose more energy in every maneuver it performs. That on top of worse acceleration. In actual combat it's going to be slower if you are trying to actually do anything, not just fly in a straight line.

The wartime results in the Pacific fall rather firmly on the side of the Corsair if you looks at missions flown and results obtained.

"Wartime results" show that over Darwin Spits gave as good as they got, while the surviving archives show 10/1 K/D for the Zeros.

Not to say the Spitfire is bad, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, but you ARE comparing a land-based mostly-European fighter against a Naval fighter that was more numerous in the Pacific and had a lot more combat encounters.

Well, I was asked to do so.

 

[GrauGeist]

bakters, do you realize how heavy 1 inch steel weighs?

Self-sealing fuel tanks used a butyl-style liner material that allowed the projectile to pass through the fuel cell and then closed the hole. Fuel tanks as a rule, did not have armor plate. Some aircraft designed for ground attack had additional protection for fuel cells, but not 1" steel.

This ongoing defense of the "super invincible" A6M is getting tiresome. I am not sure what you know, that the entire Imperial Japanese General staff did not, but the fact remains, that the A6M was a dead end and thye did not pursue further development.

You can keep going back and forth, but plenty of knowledgable people here have given you examples, details and hard numbers and it leads to the fact that the Zero's time had come and gone.

In the world of combat sims, there is always inconsistancies, and you cannot rely on anything in a sim to be relevant in the real world.

 

[GregP]

Hey bakters,

I am talking about real airplanes, not a simulator. The title says "Corsair vs Zero" and doesn't mention a simulator, which has no place in an aviation forum on WWII combat. It belongs in a dedicated gamer forum on the site that is separate. They have little to nothing in common.

Nobody much admires magnificent men in their flying simulators. They do tend to think fondly of aces in harm's way in real fighter airplanes.

People who fly sims don't do very well when I turn them upside down and let them have the stick. They freak out and don't react properly since they have never experienced negative (or, in fact, much positive) g before. It's different when you are trying to find a control and your arms are 4 times heavier or your feet come off the rudder pedals because you don't know enough to keep them there when you go to negative g situations than it is sitting at a computer desk in comfort and pressing "reset" when you screw up.

You don't sweat at a computer desk. Try flying aerobatics and NOT sweating, especially in the summer.

Admittedly, negative maneuvers aren't much used in combat but you get the point. Good combat pilots can fly a sim easily. Good sim pilots cannot do the same in reverse and have NO sense of what is real. Commercial gamer sims are made to sell and make money, not to be realistic representations of a real airplanes.

Let the average sim pilot attempt to fly a warbird (after it's airborne) and he'll (or she'll) kill the engine rather quickly. Sims don't really want to you to go down just because you took off and left it at full throttle and full rpm. Real warbirds WILL die if you do that.

The list could go on ... but it isn't necessary.

Now if you're talking a full-on military grade sim, that may be different.

Most gamers don't fly $2.5M simulators. More like $68.95 .

 

[GrauGeist]

I can give an example of what happens when a real warbird pilot flies a sim:
Many years ago, there was a combat sim that was a standard that all other sims were judged by, called Jane's WW2 fighters. It was as accurate as technology would allow for the day (1998), and it had a stellar list of veteran combat pilots as advisers for the game's development.

Among the regulars was a user by the name of Monroe, who had been an actual P-47 pilot in the ETO. Now I have a good amount of hours logged as an actual pilot, so I am not a slouch when it comes to flying in sims, but Monroe (who passed away several years ago, sadly) would kick my ass whenever we tangled over the wintery skies of Europe, 1944. He could make his P-47 (no surprise there) run circles around my Fw190A-8...I never had a chance...and I was fairly well known to be a dangerous adversary, but he made me look like a total rookie.

But to put things into perspective, he used to comment that he would have given money to have his actual P-47s fly in real life as well as they did in the sim...