I did not suggest that a bomber will be cruising at 300 mph, but will be flying at that speed. You can bet the bomber will be trying to pepper the fighter with MG fire - the fighter should have some protection to shrug off handful of bullets that struck home. Having the speed advantage of 50 mph is a better asset than 25 mph advantage. The Hellcat comes as 1st in those two comparisons. We can recall how the Zeros were unable to catch the B-26s at Midway, and how the DB-7 was a tough game for Bf-109E in 1940.
Again, the most important point was that the Zero was not designed to be a Bomber interceptor, CAP above it's task force is about as close as you get. And IIRC 4 B-26's attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, 2 were shot down, 2 were so badly damaged that they were written off after the mission. One Zeke was downed in return, and 0 torpedo hits. Does not sound like an overwhelming success for the B-26's vs. the CAP to me.
Before we go one again about the Zeroes capabilities as a bomber interceptor, why don't we discuss the Spitfire's role as a long range escort, or perhaps the Me109's ability as a ground attack plane. These are not missions that the planes were designed for, as the Zero was not designed as a bomber interceptor.
No service Zero was flying with self-sealing tanks.
Very true. Of course I never stated they did have self sealing fuel tanks. I stated they had fire extinguishers, and this was not a hand extinguisher on the cockpit, but one designed to stop fuel tank fores. Apparently it was not as effective than self sealing tanks, but certainly better than not having an extinguisher.
Pilots get downed also in case their fuel tanks are set on fire, or explode. Again, Hellcat is in advantage here, this time a major advantage.
No question the Hellcat is more durable. To counter this, the Zero had definitely better visibility. The US command and control was better, which would have the US plane in the right place at the right time more often, but that was hardly a strength or weakness of the individual aircraft.
1. The following is the summary of a report on comparative performance trials between an F6F-5 and a captured Zeke 52 undertaken by Technical Air Intelligence Centre at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.
The Zeke 52 is considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot's head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gun sight did not interfere with forward vision.
The one thing I will agree with wholeheartedly though Tomo - is the survivability of pilots in the two planes. The Zero is going to be downed more often by bomber fire, yes.
I think given the same level of command and control for CAP for instance, the Zeke (A6M3) will well out perform the Wildcat. The Hellcat will perform similar to the Zeke in this role IMO, given similar levels of command and control as well as similar levels of pilot skill.
However, the Zero will take less punishment, and even though it may accomplish it's mission well, at will result in the loss of more pilots. I think this shows with the Zeke vs the Wildcat. Air losses were often very similar in early war carrier battles such as Coral Sea and Santa Cruz, despite the Zero being a better vehicle to establish air superiority. And this was the wrong thing for the Japanese. Combine high pilot loses with a poor pilot replacement program, and you have the Marianas Turkey shoot. The Marianas battle was lost in the air over Guadacanal just as much as it was lost in the actual Marianas battle.