Hellcat vs Zero

[GregP]

Never happens to ME!

Haha ...

 

[Garyt]

Jeff - Your comparison would be appreciated and helpful.

By the way - do you have info on the A6M5a?

2 out of 3 - In hindsight, it was crazy not to have radio communication in fighter aircraft during all operations!!!

You know, Flyboy, I kinda look at the US/Japanese radio issues in their aircraft similar to the German AFV's vs early French and Russian AFV's. Germans had and used radio extensively - the French and early war russians did not. The french tanks one on one were superior to the 1940 German tanks - and the Russian KV's and T34's were superior to the German tanks one on one. But the Germans carried the day rather easily, much having to do with their better communication.

Only difference is the US Hellcat was superior to an arguable extent, AND they had better communications. The Japanese were able to hold their own earlier with a superior fighter (Zeke vs. the Wildcat), even though the US had better communications, vectoring, etc.

 

[GregP]

The Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!

If I'm not mistaken, the Germans did well against very early T-345s that had weak tracks and some initial teething problems. After the few very early T-34 faults were fixed, the Germans didn't have much luck against them.

 

[nuuumannn]

I've always found it difficult to swallow raw data as a direct comparison of aircraft types, particularly when there is marked difference in powerplant etc in aircraft like the Zero and F6F; all you do is find out what you already know. Yes raw data has its place, but today they are of academic interest only and don't really tell us anything different to what we already know about combat in WW2. Real world situations have a tendency to make figures produced in a test scenario look a little hollow at times. To put my discussion into perspective, for example, Saburo Sakai flying an A6M2 against some tyro fresh out of navy flight school in an F6F is going to beat the tyro hands down. I bet the US Navy pilot would also not be sitting in his burning fighter stating that the figures show that his aeroplane was superior to the Japanese one, so he shouldn't have lost! Even if the US Navy was equipped with the Zero and the IJN with the F6F, the overall outcome of the war would have been no different to what it was.

Also, in terms of timeline, the A6M was equivalent to the F4F - even despite improvements, the Zero had had its day by the time the later models of the F6F came along. The lack of an effective and suitable replacement to the Zero was a big hindrance to the Japanese.

 

[GregP]

When I read about the flying qualities of the Hellcat, it stands out. Many of the pilots said that if it had slightly better speed and climb performance it would have easily been the best fighter of the war bar none. Their opinions might have been slightly biased ... I can't say. All the Hellcat pilots I personally know love it without reservation.

One thing said was that when it was tested against the P-47 (P-47 variant not mentioned), though the P-47 was faster and could fly higher, the F6F pilot almost always got the "win" by dint of much superior maneuvering in mock combat. This is from Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand in the Hellcat section. No matter what opponent it faced, it came out pretty well, especially when the bullets flew and kills were counted up.

So ... it seems to be well-loved by its pilots and absolutely DID have a great kill-to-loss ratio wherever it fought. That says to me that it had the ruggedness and staying power to hang in a fight and give a good account of itself.

The Zeke was a wonderful-handling plane that had good firepower and had a lot a very good characteristics to it, but it was stuck with a 1,130 HP engine (or thereabouts, depending on variant) ... reliable but not powerful. To have performance similar to 2,000 HP fighters it had to give up something, and that something was weight. As a result, there was no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks and the skin was of thinner gage metal. I think the heavying-up of the controls at speed could have been corrected and it COULD have been given a much more powerful engine to enhance it's development.

But it never happened.

As a result, it suffered greatly when it encountered Hellcats, particularly when the Hellcats closed at 290 mph and above, which they did as they discovered their superiority at speed. After that, the end was well realized by both sides.

 

[parsifal]

When I read about the flying qualities of the Hellcat, it stands out. Many of the pilots said that if it had slightly better speed and climb performance it would have easily been the best fighter of the war bar none. Their opinions might have been slightly biased ... I can't say. All the Hellcat pilots I personally know love it without reservation.

Zeke Pilots had the same opinion of their mount. As did pilots of the 109s, spitfire, Mustang. They all say pretty much the same thing.....their aircraft was the best in the world.

The Zeke was a wonderful-handling plane that had good firepower and had a lot a very good characteristics to it, but it was stuck with a 1,130 HP engine (or thereabouts, depending on variant) ... reliable but not powerful. To have performance similar to 2,000 HP fighters it had to give up something, and that something was weight. As a result, there was no armor or self-sealing fuel tanks and the skin was of thinner gage metal. I think the heavying-up of the controls at speed could have been corrected and it COULD have been given a much more powerful engine to enhance it's development.

Youve forgotten certain types that together accounted for possibly more than half of Zeke production. A6M5a was fitted with a bullet proof windshield . A6M5b was similar but with an automatic fire extinguisher. A6M5c was fitted with armour and self sealing tanks. It suffered from being underpowered. A6M6 7 were fighter bomber verions, again fitted with windshiled armour and self sealing tanks.

It would be valid to say of these types that they had armour, but that it was inadequate. Armour accounts for some of the losses to the Zeke, but numbers were THE issue. Numbers drove up the loss rate, an increased loss rate decreased pilot skills, and decreased pilot skills again multiplied the losses. It didnt have that much to do with the qualities of the Hellcat, great as they were. The Hellcat held a singe really big advantage over the zeke, it could out dive it standard combat procedures for the Hellcat....get the altitude, diving pass through the Zekes, shoot em out of the sky like clay pidgeons. A one trick pony in other words. it was the numbers of hellcats, and the effort put into the pilot training programs that really made the difference, along with a standard tactic that virtually never changed. Thats not a great aircraft. its a good one, and one that marginally helpoed the Americans to win the war.

And there was the A6M8. Fully armoured, self sealing tanks. A lot lighter than the Hellcat, and a bit slower, could outturn, outclimb and outgun the Hellcat. Pity for the Japanese, it arrived too late and even if it had, the numbers, the pilot quality would have meant it would make virtually no difference

But it never happened.

Yes it did. The A6M8 was powered by the 1560 HP Kinsei. Hellcat was powered by a 2200 HP radial, but weighed in at 13228 lbs to the Zeke 8s 6164lbs , whilst the A6m6 and 7 were intended to be powered by sakae 31 with boost, rated to 1210hp

As a result, it suffered greatly when it encountered Hellcats, particularly when the Hellcats closed at 290 mph and above, which they did as they discovered their superiority at speed. After that, the end was well realized by both sides.

certainly when in the hands of a rookie pilot, with less than 50 hours, against a combat veteran with an average of over 700, flying on average at odds of 10-30:1. If thats the odds needed to give it legendary status, then i would agree. Clearly also in situations where the Hellcat could get the altitude, make a diving pass, it would generally win against the earlier marks of Zeke. Even so, its combat victories over the Zeke are somewhere between 3 and 4:1, even with all these advantages. That doesnt include losses on the ground, or burnt or bmbed or deliberately crashed into enemy assets

Against experienced pilots the hellcat struggle, as Sakaes encounter (and others of the few surviving veterans), showed. here the alleged turning ability of the Hellcat was exposed as the fraud that it is. Despite outnumbering by who knows what to one, and despite the airspeeds pushing very nearly 350mp, Sakae was always able to turn inside the hellcat, and use his flick rolls to stay out of harms way. oh, i forgot, he was an ace, so that doesnt count. Somehow, he could spirit extra turn capability because the zeke liked him better....i suppose.

 

[parsifal]

This is the sort of blurb that really annoys me. Its an account of the Hellcats first significant combat experience, over Wake...


"Fighting Squadron Nine (VF-9) took delivery of the first Hellcats in January, 1943. As they were flying from the Long Island factory to their Norfolk base, one crashed near Cape May, New Jersey. VF-6, commanded by Butch O'Hare, also received early deliveries of the F6F.

The Hellcat's first combat mission occurred on August 31, 1943, in a strike against Marcus Island, including Cdr. Charles Crommelin's VF-5, Lt. Cdr. Phil Torrey's VF-9, and a detachment of O'Hare's VF-6. The early-morning raiders destroyed eight twin-engine bombers on the ground; while losing two Hellcats to anti-aircraft fire and one to engine trouble. The next day, over Howland and Bakers Islands, Lt.(jg) Dick Loesch and Ens. A.W. Nyquist scored the Hellcat's first aerial victory when they teamed up to shoot down a Kawanishi H8K "Emily" flying boat.

Large-scale carrier operations began in October, with a attack on Wake. When four carriers struck Wake Island on October 5-6, the Hellcats saw their first significant aerial combat. Half an hour before dawn on the 5th, each of the four carriers launched three fighter divisions, 47 Hellcats in all. When they were still 50 miles out from Wake, the Japanese radar detected them, and 27 Zeros intercepted. In the ensuing dogfight, Fighting Nine's skipper, Phil Torrey, shot down one Zero, then evaded two more by dodging in and out of clouds. Lt. Hadden, while watching a shared kill fall into the ocean, was jumped by two Zeros, and was lucky enough to make it back to Essex with most of his engine oil emptied out through several 20mm holes. Lt. (jg) Hamilton McWhorter dove into a gaggle of Zeros, when one serendipitously appeared in his gunsight. He fired a short burst and exploded the Zero - his first aerial victory.

The raid showed that the new Hellcats could more than hold its own against the Zeros. They destroyed 22 of 34 aircraft at Wake, and 12 American planes were lost - 6 to the Zeros and 6 to AA gunfire".

In fact, the Japanese didnt lose 22, they didnt lose 12, they lost 4 Zekes according to Japanese records. nobody lets the truth get in the way of a good myth when it comes to the hellcat.

 

[CORSNING]

I have found that pertinent raw data from test trials is very enlightening. It gives a better understanding of what the machinery is capable of over the entire realm of the sky and not just at a(the) selective altitude(s) that are published everywhere.

Saburo Sakai in a Zero vs a tyro in a Hellcat? You could put Saburo in a Gloster Gladiator, and if he had the height advantage and spotted the Hellcat first he would probably still win the duel. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND SLILL! An excellent pilot with just a little luck is a very, very strong force to be reckoned with in the air.

Well, I do believe the Hellcat victories overall included a greater ratio of bomber and scout aircraft than the Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Lightnings.

 

[GregP]

Hi Parsifal,

I didn't forget.

They made 5,706 A6M5's but there is no breakout for A6M5a "Kou", b "Otsu", or c "Hai" numbers built. Mitsubishi built 2,130 A6M5s and Nakajima built 3,573 A6M5s. The A6M5c "Hai"didn't have self-sealing tanks ... it had more armor plate on the windscreen and pilot's seat, and the armament was three 13.2 mm MG + two 20 mm cannons and thicker wing skin to increase the dive speed a bit.

The A6M6c DID have self-sealing tanks ... all one of them that was built. The A6M7 was never built and they built all of two A6M8s with Kinsei 62 engines (1,560 HP!) in place of the Sakae 31. So we are talking a whopping three aircraft of the Zero family that had self-sealing tanks, none of which ever saw combat.

Reference post #27, maybe you could share your source for Japanese war records? It would make interesting reading. I've never managed to find any Japanese war records myself and would love to look at some.

Hi Jeff!

Long time, no talk. I've seen the Hellcat's victories broken out by basic type (1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163) but have never seen the USAAF fighter victories so broken out. I've seen the P-51 total broken out as 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills (not considered an official victory since the victims were unmanned and not airborne). But I have NOT seen the air kills broken out by victim type.

It WOULD make sense for the P-51 to have a high percent of fighter kills since they largely were assigned to escort duties and the bomber streams were attacked by fighters, fighter-bombers (I'm thinking Me-410) and flak ... no bombers ever attacked B-17's unless it was an isolated incident, probably due to a damaged B-17 limping home alone.

The Hellcats had to encounter the Japanese wherever they could find them, and most Japanese attacks on ground installations or ships included bombers ... or else why attack in the first place? A fighter isn't usually going to sink an armored ship and it won't destroy a ground installation either. So the bombers were the real reason for the mission.

Do you agree? And do you have a breakout of the P-51's victims by type?

 

[Garyt]

The Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!

If I'm not mistaken, the Germans did well against very early T-345s that had weak tracks and some initial teething problems. After the few very early T-34 faults were fixed, the Germans didn't have much luck against them.

One on one vs T34's, the Germans struggled. But field battles are rarely one on one duels, and while the Germans appreciated the qualities of the T34, they had success in the big scheme of things. To give to an idea - At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Russia had 8,590 tanks, 1,590 of the T-34 and KV designs. The Germans had 3,266 tanks. Of these, only 1,146 had guns of 50mm or larger. So German tanks with guns having any type of a chance vs the KV's or T-34's were outnumbered almost 1.5 to 1 by these advanced russian tanks. Given the initial successes of Barbarossa, the Germans did pretty well even when outnumbered by these russian tanks.

One surprising thing though - The German 50mm Long barrel which equipped few tanks at the start of Barbarossa, but was being produced at the time out penetrated the T34's 76mm gun. The German 75mm in use among tanks at the time was a low velocity with for penetration - it was designed more as an infantry support tank, it's only chance of penetrating the T34 would be with HEAT rounds.

I have found that pertinent raw data from test trials is very enlightening. It gives a better understanding of what the machinery is capable of over the entire realm of the sky and not just at a(the) selective altitude(s) that are published everywhere.

Absolutely. While pilot skill is a huge factor, it is nice to know what the planes were capable of. While Saburo Sakai was easily a match for Hellcats in a Zeke, he loved the Reppu he test flew, and I'm sure he would have felt a lot more confident flying that than the Zeke. Heck, if he had one available earlier in the war he would have likely avoided the head wound that put him out of comission for a long time, merely because the armored windscreen.

You know I was thinking about something else that I am sure inflated Hellcat numbers - The most common kamikaze of the war was a Zeke. If a flight of Hellcats intercept a flight of loaded Kamikaze Zekes, it should be an easy kill as the Zekes are not looking for air to air combat, not to mention they would be flown by novice pilots, and have their flight characteristics severely degraded by carrying a 550 pound bomb. But it would be air-to-air kills for Hellcats vs Zekes none the less.

The raid showed that the new Hellcats could more than hold its own against the Zeros. They destroyed 22 of 34 aircraft at Wake, and 12 American planes were lost - 6 to the Zeros and 6 to AA gunfire".

In fact, the Japanese didnt lose 22, they didnt lose 12, they lost 4 Zekes according to Japanese records. nobody lets the truth get in the way of a good myth when it comes to the hellcat.

Interesting, Parsifal. They are comparing Hellcat claimed kills of Zekes vs Hellcat ACTUAL losses. That's an easy way to get some inflated kill ratios!

 

[GregP]

When US Navy claims were vetted after the war, they were found to be mostly a LOT more reliable than claims over Europe. The reasons were obvious. Most Naval aircraft fighters were of the 4 - 8 vs. 4 - 8 variety and not the 1,000 plane raids that could be seen over Europe. Thus it was MUCH easier to keep track of what happened because there were many fewer planes involved. Some of the largest Pacific encounters involved only some 25 - 30 planes for each side. The accuracy of claims for ALL sides was MUCH better when the numbers of combatants were small.

Some of the very early Naval encounters were inflated, but they settled down rapidly and, by the time the Hellcats got there, the type of claims versus actuals inaccuracy in Parsifal's post above should have been largely a thing of the past.

 

[Garyt]

Also, in terms of timeline, the A6M was equivalent to the F4F - even despite improvements, the Zero had had its day by the time the later models of the F6F came along. The lack of an effective and suitable replacement to the Zero was a big hindrance to the Japanese.

Again, I think too many look at the A6M2 when thinking of the Zero. That's as bad as looking at the ME109F and comparing it vs. P47's and later Merlin powered P51's. The ME109K was the contemporary of these planes, and is a fair amount different than the ME109F.

While I'll agree it was inferior to the Hellcat, IMO it was not by a wide margin inferior.

It would be valid to say of these types that they had armour, but that it was inadequate. Armour accounts for some of the losses to the Zeke, but numbers were THE issue. Numbers drove up the loss rate, an increased loss rate decreased pilot skills, and decreased pilot skills again multiplied the losses. It didnt have that much to do with the qualities of the Hellcat, great as they were. The Hellcat held a singe really big advantage over the zeke, it could out dive it standard combat procedures for the Hellcat....get the altitude, diving pass through the Zekes, shoot em out of the sky like clay pidgeons. A one trick pony in other words. it was the numbers of hellcats, and the effort put into the pilot training programs that really made the difference, along with a standard tactic that virtually never changed. Thats not a great aircraft. its a good one, and one that marginally helpoed the Americans to win the war.

The one thing I'd say about this tactic, Parsifal - by the time the A6M5 rolls around, this should be a lot less successful as the A6M5 had a top dive speed of 460 as opposed to the earlier A6M2 that topped out around 390. But I think the big issue at this later time is WHY do the Hellcats have this altitude advantage? Not due to their inferior climb ability. Again I think this is a command and control issue, where the US flights were far more often in the right place at the right time, and this includes being at the best altitude.

And while the later Zekes had a decent dive speed, it's a fair amount harder to catch and hit a diving plane, and a very difficult prospect for a rookie to do so.

One thing as well about the Zeke - it is so often referred to as "underpowered" based on it horsepower. IMO it was not that "underpowered" - It's horsepower to rate ratio was not that bad. More accurately I'd say it was a lightweight going up against middle weights and maybe even heavyweights if it ran into a P47.

 

[CORSNING]

The comparison of the Zero-sen to the Hellcat in WW2 is completely and totally one sided in favor of the A6M2/3 up until August 28, 1943. The Hellcat in combat did not exist until then.

The following information for the F6F-3 comes from the test trials of aircraft numbers 02982 and 25892 using up to 53.5"Hg engine boosting. Information for the A6M3 model 32 are taken from T.A.I.C. 152 chart sheet. Performance figures from that sheet are plotted on a graph and then calculated using performance lines from T.A.I.C. 102 AND A.T.A.D. # T-1 sheet 103A.

MATCHUP NO. 1: F6F-3 and (A6M3 model 32)

Altitude/Seed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L......322/3120 (297/3580)
1,000..320/2790 (306/3660)
2,000..331/2550 (316/3740)
3,000..343/2465 (326/3710)
4,000..354/2400 (325/2935)
5,000..365/2090 (330/2905)
6,000..367/1910 (343/2730)
7,000..376/1615 (345/2225)
8,000..370/1305 (337/1685)
9,000..N.G./ 995 (328/1145)
10,000.N.G./ 675 (317/ 610)

Maximums: 377.5 mph.@ 22,300 ft. and 3,120 fpm.@ S.L. (348 mph.@ 20,500 ft. and 3,810 fpm.@ 9,400 ft.)

Ceilings
Combat: 29,470 ft. (30,420 ft.)
Operational: 34,390 ft. (33,465 ft.)
Service: 38,900 ft. (35,900 ft.)

Range Clean: 955 mls./160 mph./1,500 ft./250 gallons of fuel. (995 mls./188 mph./19,600 ft./141 gallons of fuel.)
Range Maximum: 1,540 mls./149 mph./1,500 ft./400 gallons. (1,585 mls./184 mph./16,600 ft./228 gallons.)

Engine: Pratt Whitney R-2800-10: 1,995 hp.@ S.L. 1,800 hp.@ 3,200-16,200 ft. ( Nakajima Sakae 21: 1,115 hp.@ take-off. 1,180 hp.@ 7,500 ft.)

Combat Weight: 11,364 (5,650) lbs.

Wing Area: 334 ( 231.746) sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 34.02+(24.38+)lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.696+(4.788+) lbs./hp.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi Jeff!

Long time, no talk. I've seen the Hellcat's victories broken out by basic type (1,445 bombers and 3,718 fighters for a total of 5,163) but have never seen the USAAF fighter victories so broken out. I've seen the P-51 total broken out as 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills (not considered an official victory since the victims were unmanned and not airborne). But I have NOT seen the air kills broken out by victim type.

It WOULD make sense for the P-51 to have a high percent of fighter kills since they largely were assigned to escort duties and the bomber streams were attacked by fighters, fighter-bombers (I'm thinking Me-410) and flak ... no bombers ever attacked B-17's unless it was an isolated incident, probably due to a damaged B-17 limping home alone.

The Hellcats had to encounter the Japanese wherever they could find them, and most Japanese attacks on ground installations or ships included bombers ... or else why attack in the first place? A fighter isn't usually going to sink an armored ship and it won't destroy a ground installation either. So the bombers were the real reason for the mission.

Do you agree? And do you have a breakout of the P-51's victims by type?[/QUOTE]


Hi Greg,

No sir, I do not have any breakdown of types of victims. At this time I just have beliefs based on the ideas you have just posted. And yes, I agree with you. (Until someone posts proof of differing information).

Jeff8)

 

[Garyt]

Power Loading: 5.696+(4.788+) lbs./hp.

Interesting. The Zero has a better ratio of lbs per horsepower than the Hellcat. Explains the climb advantages (though of course lift plays a role), and should also make it a faster accelerator than the Hellcat. Also goes along with what I said about the Zeke not being underpowered - just smaller than most American planes.

The one thing I'd say about this tactic, Parsifal - by the time the A6M5 rolls around, this should be a lot less successful as the A6M5 had a top dive speed of 460 as opposed to the earlier A6M2 that topped out around 390.

Thought I just might better explain what I was trying to say Parsifal. It's not that the dive, strike, dive away is a bad tactic for a Hellcat vs the Zero - It's a heck of a lot better idea than trying to turn with one. It's just that while the Hellcat is still a bit better of a diver, it's not that much better than the Zero. And of course with initiative, i.e. beg the one diving at the Zero as opposed to the Zero diving on you, you have an advantage and even with two planes of equal diving ability you would still have an advantage.

But the Zero has the ability to pursue at similar speeds, and the lower the Hellcat gets the better the Zero perform in comparison, and at some point you will want to climb again to gain altitude back, and the Zero was a better climber by a decent margin.

 

[tomo pauk]

What was the number - 3/4 of downed pilots never saw the attacker? In that light, piloting the Zero looks to me as a far greater risk than piloting the Hellcat. We can also recall that fighters were also to kill bombers, not just other fighters, and the bombers have a nasty habit to shoot back. How good is the Zero when trying to catch a sturdy 300 mph bomber that fires it's guns; how good is the Hellcat trying to do the same?

Both Greg and parsifal make very good points - 1st that up-engined and up-armored Zeros were as rare as hen teeth, 2nd that we need to be vary of claims vs. real kills.

 

[CORSNING]

But the Zero has the ability to pursue at similar speeds, and the lower the Hellcat gets the better the Zero perform in comparison, and at some point you will want to climb again to gain altitude back, and the Zero was a better climber by a decent margin.[/QUOTE]


Speeds of aircraft being similar, the Hellcat driver could gain altitude over the A6M3 by using a high speed shallow climb.

From TAIC REPORT NO. 17, November 1944 comparing F6F-5 to A6M5:

"Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."

"The F6F-5 was slightly superior in Zooms after dives."

"The maneuverability of the the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots, being far superior to that of the F6F-5. Its superiority, however, diminishes with increased speed, due to its high control forces, and the F6F-5 has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots."

The Zeke weighed in at 6,094 lbs. and the Hellcat, 12285 lbs.

 

[davebender]

Germans didn't "carry the day" very often against T-34's!

Operation Barbarossa: T-34 Myth Buster
That statement is not supported by historical data. Even during 1941 when Germany had only light tanks and AT guns the Red Army still managed to lose about 2,300 out of about 3,100 total T-34s available. During 1942 the Red Army lost about 6,600 T-34s to a German Army that was still largely equipped with nothing more powerful then 5cm/60 cannon.

T-34 losses by cause. June 1941 to September 1942.
54.3% 5cm/60 cannon.
10.1% 7.5cm. No break down by cannon type but most must have been 7.5cm/24.
10% 37mm.
7.5% 5cm/42.
7.1% Unknown. Presumable mines and infantry attack.
4.7% 20mm.
3.4% 8.8cm. These would have been heavy flak weapons.
2.9% 10.5cm howitzer.

 

[Garyt]

Both Greg and parsifal make very good points - 1st that up-engined and up-armored Zeros were as rare as hen teeth

Not true, I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

The A6M5 was the most produced variant - over half of Zeroes produced were this version -and was "up engined", as well as armored, though not quite as heavily as the Hellcat. Up engining was done by modifying the exhaust of the A6M3.

Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Had wing folding mechanism removed and a rounded tip was installed. Exhaust was modified and provided some extra thrust. 747 built
Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52a Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Ammunition feed was improved. Skin gauge was increased to allow faster diving. Diving speed was 460 mph. 391 built
Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52b Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Added armor for pilot and fuel tanks. A fire extinguisher system was added. The armament was improved. Added a 5 mm bullet resistant windscreen. Could carry two 150 liter drop tanks under the wings. 470 built.
Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52c Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Armament was revised. A self sealing fuel tank added behind the pilot which caused center of gravity problems. 8 mm plate installed behind the pilot. 55 mm of armored glass installed behind pilot's head. A 37 gallon self sealing fuel tank was placed behind the pilot. 93 built

How good is the Zero when trying to catch a sturdy 300 mph bomber that fires it's guns; how good is the Hellcat trying to do the same?

Depends on altitude. At about 4000 meters and under, the Zero and Hellcat are about 15-25 mph different. But the Zero was not designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - That was left to the various army fighters. And there's not a WW2 bomber that cruises at 300+ - One of the fastest, the B29, cruised at 220 mph.

What was the number - 3/4 of downed pilots never saw the attacker? In that light, piloting the Zero looks to me as a far greater risk than piloting the Hellcat.

Once again, command and control played a huge roll here. ANY plane that does not see it's attacker is at a disadvantage. And thru better use of radio and radar, the US command and control was better. Even if the US would have flown Brewster Buffalo's through the war, their command and control would be better.

The Hellcat is indeed more durable - But as far as being attacked from behind and above, too my knowledge no fighters in WW2 had bullet proof canopies, so all pilots would be in Jeapordy.

 

[Garyt]

T-34 losses by cause. June 1941 to September 1942.
54.3% 5cm/60 cannon.

Off topic as well Dave, but that 5cm/60 was actually a pretty nice weapon for it's time, Reminds me of a scaled down version of the Panthers 75mm.

Speeds of aircraft being similar, the Hellcat driver could gain altitude over the A6M3 by using a high speed shallow climb.

But I was talking about the A6M5

But I would think a zoom climb by the Hellcat would still gain some space. But if the Zero doggedly pursues it will close the altitude difference after the momentum gained from the zoom is lost.