Corsair vs Zero

[CobberKane]

It's certainly true that the Zero would easily beat the Corsair in a sub-250mph, low altitude dogfight. Equally the Corsair would dominate at higher altitudes and higher speeds. What has to be kept in mind is initiative; the Corsairs greater power and superior high speed handling meant that if it initiated the attack it could choose to fight in an envelope where it was clearly the better fighter, and if attacked while operating at a lower speed where the Zero exceled it could (given any altitude) quickly get back to where it wanted to be by diving. The Zero on the other hand could only hope to maintain the initiative if it caught the Corsair low and slow, a situation the Corsair pilot should be trained and equipped to avoid. Hence the Zero's low speed prowess is going to determine tactics much more than outcomes.
The progress in fighter development throughout the war was towards more power, more speed and, necessarily, more weight because such aircraft were usually able to dominate opposition designed for agility. Particularly when that agility was enabled by lack of armour and self- sealing tanks, as with the Zero . Very often we see descriptions of a given fighter's abilities compared to its opposition qualified with an 'if', as in 'the P-40 was a match for the 109 IF it engaged below 15000 ft. and without an altitude deficit' or 'the Zero remained a dangerous opponent IF the Corsair pilot attempted to fight low and slow'. I think these 'ifs' often serve as a tacit acknowledgement of the subject fighter's deficiencies, and the fact that the aircraft it is being compared to was, qualifications aside, a better aerial weapon.

 

[cudwo]

This is probually one of the most famous pair of planes of the pacific theater. The corsair, very manuverable tough and fast (417mph), one of the biggest fighters of the war with its massive 18 cylinder double wasp R-4360 raidial engine puting out 3,600 hp that spun the huge 13 foot 3 blade prop. It was feared by zero pilots. Six 50 cals could tear the zero apart and could sink small ships It was a leap in avaiation technology with new ways of making the fusalage more drag resistant and the gull wing to prevent the prop from hitting the deck of a carrier. Its combat carrier didnt stop after the war. Its bombing capabilitys were also acceptable and was used in korea and could carry 4500lbs of ordanance. and even shot a few migs down.
The zero,a copied design of howard hughes racer. at the start of the war was feared by american pilots it was very agile and fast compared to the wildcat. being very lite it only had a 900 hp 14cylinder double row raidial engine. It armerment was small ,two 7.7 mm machine guns in the nose and two 20mm cannons in the wings.
Until the corsair arrived the zero ruled the sky's but when the Corsair came it was majorly outclassed and was slaughtred. The Corsair was obviously the supirior fighter.

What do you think???

Corsair had 2000 HP not 3500 (but still very impressive).It was a great land based fighter but a horrible carrier base fighter.The Americans discontinued the Corsair from Aircraft Carrier use until the British figured out how to land on a Carrier and Take off from a Carrier with the Corsair.After the British Re-trained the Americans ,only then was it used in the South Pacific off American aircraft carriers.British also had to modify a few things to make this work.Remember you couldnt see what was ahead of you in this aircraft.Thats why they fish tail down the run way to line up B4 takeoff.Sometimes they had a soldier sit on each wing to taxi them.....Great Fighter though when it got airbourne

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Corsair had 2000 HP not 3500 (but still very impressive).It was a great land based fighter but a horrible carrier base fighter.The Americans discontinued the Corsair from Aircraft Carrier use until the British figured out how to land on a Carrier and Take off from a Carrier with the Corsair.After the British Re-trained the Americans ,only then was it used in the South Pacific off American aircraft carriers.British also had to modify a few things to make this work.Remember you couldnt see what was ahead of you in this aircraft.Thats why they fish tail down the run way to line up B4 takeoff.Sometimes they had a soldier sit on each wing to taxi them.....Great Fighter though when it got airbourne

FYI - this thread has been dead for 2 years.

 

[bakters]

I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.

Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.

So why do I write all this? I read the whole thread (hard to believe, but true) and I do not think I'm able to grasp how come it was supposedly so "easy" to win a one-on-one dogfight against the Zeke. Until my opponents makes an obvious mistake, I can't ever get a good shot at him. Bots do make mistakes, so do I, but it's never easy.

What exactly I'm supposed to do to make it "easy". Many people argued that it would be "easy" to outmaneuver the Zeke while staying at high speed. Go ahead and "maneuver" while staying at high speed... I can't do that. Diving and turning, diving and rolling, nothing really works. Actually, just diving and jinking is the most effective way of getting out of range, but who knows, I may be doing it 'rong.

On the other hand, me in a Zeke and a bot in a "fastplane" is quick and clean. They never get their sights anywhere near me before they die.

So what exactly I'm supposed to do in a "fastplane", to never give the Zeke a chance to shoot at me and kill it cleanly?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.

Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.

So why do I write all this? I read the whole thread (hard to believe, but true) and I do not think I'm able to grasp how come it was supposedly so "easy" to win a one-on-one dogfight against the Zeke. Until my opponents makes an obvious mistake, I can't ever get a good shot at him. Bots do make mistakes, so do I, but it's never easy.

What exactly I'm supposed to do to make it "easy". Many people argued that it would be "easy" to outmaneuver the Zeke while staying at high speed. Go ahead and "maneuver" while staying at high speed... I can't do that. Diving and turning, diving and rolling, nothing really works. Actually, just diving and jinking is the most effective way of getting out of range, but who knows, I may be doing it 'rong.

On the other hand, me in a Zeke and a bot in a "fastplane" is quick and clean. They never get their sights anywhere near me before they die.

So what exactly I'm supposed to do in a "fastplane", to never give the Zeke a chance to shoot at me and kill it cleanly?

Spot your enemy, attack in his blind side, shoot him down, go home.

 

[GregP]

The Zero was not related to Howard Hughes' racer in any way. That's old WWII-era propaganda. It was an original design by Jiro Horikoshi. His next design was the J2M Raiden, also an original design and unrelated to any other aircraft. It was related by company and designer only.

 

[GrauGeist]

I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.

Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.

So why do I write all this? I read the whole thread (hard to believe, but true) and I do not think I'm able to grasp how come it was supposedly so "easy" to win a one-on-one dogfight against the Zeke. Until my opponents makes an obvious mistake, I can't ever get a good shot at him. Bots do make mistakes, so do I, but it's never easy.

What exactly I'm supposed to do to make it "easy". Many people argued that it would be "easy" to outmaneuver the Zeke while staying at high speed. Go ahead and "maneuver" while staying at high speed... I can't do that. Diving and turning, diving and rolling, nothing really works. Actually, just diving and jinking is the most effective way of getting out of range, but who knows, I may be doing it 'rong.

On the other hand, me in a Zeke and a bot in a "fastplane" is quick and clean. They never get their sights anywhere near me before they die.

So what exactly I'm supposed to do in a "fastplane", to never give the Zeke a chance to shoot at me and kill it cleanly?

2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:

I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed manoeuvrability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle.

 

[pbehn]

Can you use a sim 200 miles over water from anyone that will rescue you, and instead of re starting the game jump in the water? I wouldnt besmirch any servicemans reputation but that last thing a pilot wants to do in combat is to "be brave", much better to use what you have to give the opponent no chance.

As someones quote on here says, "if it is a fair fight, you did something wrong"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:

I found this today thumbing through an old book...

 

[VBF-13]

I tried it in a sim. I know it's just a game with various inaccuracies and plain stupidities, but since it doesn't matter much which plane I'm flying against a Zero, I somehow don't think that it has exactly zero (pardon the pun) meaning.

Spitfire seems the easiest, but even with that plane I can't really gain an obvious advantage. Just like with any other plane, all I'm able to do is force a head-on attack and be "brave" about it. Easy to do in a sim, I know.

So why do I write all this? I read the whole thread (hard to believe, but true) and I do not think I'm able to grasp how come it was supposedly so "easy" to win a one-on-one dogfight against the Zeke. Until my opponents makes an obvious mistake, I can't ever get a good shot at him. Bots do make mistakes, so do I, but it's never easy.

What exactly I'm supposed to do to make it "easy". Many people argued that it would be "easy" to outmaneuver the Zeke while staying at high speed. Go ahead and "maneuver" while staying at high speed... I can't do that. Diving and turning, diving and rolling, nothing really works. Actually, just diving and jinking is the most effective way of getting out of range, but who knows, I may be doing it 'rong.

On the other hand, me in a Zeke and a bot in a "fastplane" is quick and clean. They never get their sights anywhere near me before they die.

So what exactly I'm supposed to do in a "fastplane", to never give the Zeke a chance to shoot at me and kill it cleanly?

Get above it and dive on it. Dogfighting it is playing to its strength.

 

[GrauGeist]

I found this today thumbing through an old book...

View attachment 307744

That's awesome!

I wish I would have had the foresight to have collected autographs from the guys that I met - but I was young and thought these guys would be around forever...

 

[GregP]

If I read that right, it is Ken Walsh (21 kills). Right? Great you got that one! Better put it under glass and keep it safe, huh? Have any more?

With all the people you have met in the business, my bet is there's more than one.

I have framed aircraft prints signed by Erich Hartmann (Bf 109G), Saburo Sakai (A6M5), and Ivan Kozhedub (La-5FN). They are safely wrapped up right now, but I'll likely never give them up until I pass away, at which time they'll hopefully go where I want them to go. I won't be able to affect it other than to have said where I want them to go. Hopefully I manage to get them out and hang them when I get into a place where I can unpack my household goods. Since I moved from a 2800 sq foot house into a small apartment, there just isn't room right now.

 

[bakters]

2Lt. Walsh, USMC MoH DFC (21 victories), of VMF-124 once said of the Corsair:

Oh, I get it. It's not supposed to be easy? Now it all makes more sense. It even explains why I had the most success in a Spit, because the Spit has better climb rate than the Zeke, so it's possible to slowly gain on him and get the altitude advantage.

Playing unfair - Yes, of course. In the real world that's what I would do, but in a sim I'm just trying to figure out how to fight when the enemy is aware of me and can react. In a better plane I should not need to play unfair to win if I do everything right.

Dive from altitude - So I hold all the cards? Better and faster plane with both speed and altitude advantage? As unfair as it can be, baring the other guy flies blind. I tried that, and that's how it works when playing against humans.

1. You attack from altitude.
2. The Zeke sees you, but pretends not to (easier that way, I guess).
3. When it's too late for you to correct, the Zeke makes a lazy turn under your nose or some other evasive maneuver.
4. Now there are two options
a.) You zoom up and try to follow with another quick attack, hoping you will catch him somehow. FOOLISH! But everybody knows that, so let's forget about it.
b.) You do not zoom, but extend away, even keep on diving.
5. A stupid Zeke might try to follow you in a dive, but a smart one will climb at his optimal (slow) climbing speed. (Or he might follow... You never know, especially in a Corsair with poor rear visibility.)

So the end result is, that you expended a fair amount of your energy in a dive while the Zeke expended a tiny bit while going evasive, but then steadily gains! Any quick follow up attack will mean that the energy states became closer.

Seriously, I will try an I-153 Russian biplane if it's modeled. Should be fun.

 

[GregP]

Sims don't replicate combat very well.

They make for good games because the stakes are zero. In real combat, if you guess wrong, you may die ... quickly or slowly in the water, snow, etc. .. wherever you go down if you don't die immediately when you get shot down.

Nobody makes the same decisions when their life is at stake as when they're playing a game.

 

[Greyman]

2. The Zeke sees you ...

This is the big one. Most online competitive sims have bright, coloured icons over friend and foe alike, drastically changing (ruining) the most important aspect of WWII aerial combat.

I'd have to see video of your tactics to make a real comment. But if you want to triple or quadruple your success with a real Corsair tactic that's guaranteed to work in the game; always fly with a wingman.

 

[bakters]

"If you see one Zero, run! You are being outnumbered!" - That's what you mean?

More seriously, I chimed in because from what I've tried in games, fighting any fighter with superior climb rate one-vs-one is difficult! Fighting an airplane with superior climb rate and unmatched maneuverability is extremely difficult, if the other guy knows what he's doing.

And there is no "I win!" button you can press by going boom&zoom way. Yes, you can and should refuse to turn with the light plane, but he can and should refuse to follow you in a dive. In the end it boils down to who can get above the other guy, and here the climb rate is the crucial factor.

 

[bakters]

This is the big one. Most online competitive sims have bright, coloured icons over friend and foe alike, drastically changing (ruining) the most important aspect of WWII aerial combat.

I'd have to see video of your tactics to make a real comment. But if you want to triple or quadruple your success with a real Corsair tactic that's guaranteed to work in the game; always fly with a wingman.

If the solution is to either jump the other guy unawares or outnumber him, then it's pretty much conceding defeat, is it not?

Just a thought that entered my head right now. I remember seeing on Youtube a propag... I mean a History Channel flick on Hellcats, and how they owned Zeros with absolute ease. Poor Japanese had no chance in their outdated slow acrobatic toys, if you believe in what was being said.

Then I read comments section and there was a guy claiming to fly hellcats in the war. I checked on him. A guy of his name really served on one carrier, he flown Hellcats and Corsairs in the war and had some victories to his name. He must have felt really good learning that his job was practically a child's play...

Anyway, he wrote that one-on-one Japanese had the advantage, but they never let them have a fair fight, and that's how they won.

 

[Greyman]

If the solution is to either jump the other guy unawares or outnumber him, then it's pretty much conceding defeat, is it not?

If by 'conceding defeat' you mean admitting that gladiatorial contest and knightly jousting are things of the past, then yes. As a fighter pilot (even a virtual one) your job is to tear the enemy in half the easiest, least dangerous way possible.

 

[bakters]

If by 'conceding defeat' you mean admitting that gladiatorial contest and knightly jousting are things of the past, then yes. As a fighter pilot (even a virtual one) your job is to tear the enemy in half the easiest, least dangerous way possible.

And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.

 

[BiffF15]

And if the other guy sees me, then I run because I'm being "outnumbered"? That is defeat all right, in my book.

Bakters,

Running is not always to be associated with defeat. If I'm in a superior plane, in a very bad position even one on one, then I'm most likely running (mission dependent). I will run if on a pure fighter sweep because the my superiors, training, squadron, flight, crew chief, tax payers and loved ones expect me not to squander my life or their plane away. If I'm in a bad position, out numbered, but am protecting a High Value Asset, then I'm expendable and expected to inflict as much damage as I can before donating my life to the cause/mission.

Running allows you to learn what to avoid next time or get smarter, it saves the tax payers investment especially when the production lines are no longer opens and replacements are no longer being made, and it saves you life for future use.

Cheers,
Biff