Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

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

That's akin to a A6M jumping an inattentive pilot flying a Fw 190 or Spitfire IX. It doesn't matter what your opponent is flying, it could be a superlative Grumman F8F Bearcat, if he's inattentive.

The A6M isn't designed for ambush attacks, and in my tank example, the M-18 Hellcat and the PzKpfw V are both aware of each other, it's a clear field, good visibility. No one is surprised. What do you want to be in, the Panther with its near ideal balance of armament, protection and mobility, or the unprotected but otherwise well armed and highly mobile Hellcat?

It's the balance of firepower, protection and performance (including agility and endurance) that's needed. Where do you want to be, in the balanced Fw 190 or the unbalanced A6M? When Mitsubishi submitted its design for the A6M, the IJN should have sent it back, and demanded a better balance of the three core elements needed for any fighter. If the engine is too weak, then get a new one - it's 1939, you have two years to get a new engine made.
 
fubar57 said:
A kill is a kill. Your superior equipment gets knocked out no matter how, you can't say "doesn't count, you aren't playing right" You are still dead to an inferior piece of equipment
Click to expand...
Sure, but a little bit of protection makes you harder to kill, and makes it more likely you'll kill the other guy. It's all about improving the odds of your guys winning and coming home.
 
fubar57 said:
And that's exactly what happened to the weaker Hellcat at the Battle of Arracourt
Click to expand...
Such asymmetric victories are as old as David and Goliath going back as far as men with fire driving mammoths into traps. As soon as you develop a successful weapon and strategy someone else will develop something to overcome it.
 
pbehn said:
Such asymmetric victories are as old as David and Goliath going back as far as men with fire driving mammoths into traps. As soon as you develop a successful weapon and strategy someone else will develop something to overcome it.
Click to expand...
And that's the A6M's fatal flaw, being a design that was unable to evolve and cope with the opponents adaptions. Even though they first flew in 1935/36, throughout the war the Bf 109 and Spitfire, through continuous observation and improvements were able to match pretty much any fighter they came across. To the Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, etc... if more armour was needed, a more powerful engine was added: if more range was needed, internal and external fuel was increased, etc.

Only the A6M seems stuck as a one trick pony. If no one is willing to engage is a low speed, close dogfight with you, you're dead. Imagine if the IJN entered the Pacific War with something like the Kawanishi N1K. Armoured, fast and heavily armed, but yes, shorter ranged than the Zero, but not disastrously so.
 



That just about sums up my thoughts on the A6M. Plane design is very similar to tank design, tanks are a balance of mobility firepower and protection, The Spitfire Me109 and FW190, the planes in this discussion, all balanced those three factors well, the Zero had lots of agility, at low speeds only, below 200mph, weak firepower and no protection.
 

And if two platoons of Panthers moved swiftly into an ambush position against a battalion of Hellcats the result would be what, a bunch of not destroyed Hellcats?.
 


All through this discussion I have said saving your most important asset, the pilot is critical, how many Aces on both the Allied and German side were shot down, many numerous times only to return and fight another day because of the protection given by their aircraft?. Look at the lengths the USN went to in the Pacific to save their pilots, knowing your aircraft can protect you and your mates will come looking for you if the worst happens is a huge moral boost and inspires confidence. Here's a question, would you go up against 8 gunned Spits and Hurri's in 1940 in an A6M knowing the effectiveness of De Wilde ammunition in starting fuel fires with 180 or so 303's per sec entering your plane with a padded seat cushion as your only protection?.
 
Zero's would mop the floor with a Hurricane, about the same top speed, Zero had much better acceleration than either the Hurricane or Spitfire, neither could dive well enough to disengage, climb with the Hurricane and Zero should be about the same, Hurricane isn't fast enough to stay above 300 mph to start out turning the Zero. Hurricane has 0 cards to play. Spitfire is about 25 mph faster and will climb faster but the Zero can climb much steeper. Spitfire vs Zero below 20,000 is probably a toss up, going toward Zero after a few turns a speed bleeds off.

Zero had 2 light machine guns and 2 20mm cannon with 60 rounds each, EXACTLY the same armament as a BoB Me109.

Would I want to be in a Zero getting shot at? No. But I wouldn't want to fight a Zero in any allied aircraft in 1942 except a P38 (and they weren't really ready either)
 
pinsog said:
Zero's would mop the floor with a Hurricane,
Click to expand...
I suppose the Sea Hurricane would fare just as poorly. Which takes us to the natural opponent of the A6M, the Seafire. With its limited range, this will need to be a case of the Zero coming to the RN CAG. The Seafire is slower and heavier than the Spitfire.

At what version does the Seafire have a good chance? Does the Zero have a radio to enable multiple aircraft coordination? This thread followed by this book look like good places to start.... Seafire vs. A6M Zero: Pacific Theatre by Donald Nijboer
 
Last edited:
stona said:
There were no DB 601s available after the adoption of the Bf 109. They were all earmarked principally for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 (which obviously required twice as many) and even then the RLM argued about the allocation for the next few years.
Click to expand...
Secondary uses were the Do 215 and the He 111, although not in that order. But the supply of DB601s was limited and without it the He 112 was a non-starter in 1939.
 

Here is a test that shocked me between a 6 Gun Wildcat and a Seafire.

This makes me wonder how well an F4F-3 would have done considering how much performance dropped between the F4F-3 and the F4F-4
 
fubar57 said:
Why is everyone upset that the weaker underdog won the battle. I'm out
Click to expand...
I believed you have posted a "tank destroyer destroys tanks" shocker. Who is stronger and weaker is for history to decide but the M 18 is historically described as a tank destroyer and it seems to have destroyed tanks.
 
Glider said:
a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war
Click to expand...
This rather depends on the 20mm cannon involved and to a much lesser extent the LMGs involved.

The Zero in Dec of 1941 and most of 1942 had about the same fire power as a Bf 109 (at least the cannon armed ones) of late 1939/early 1940.
The German LMGs had a bit higher rate of fire (and possible a lot more ammo, probably too much if the ammo bins were full).
The Japanese 20mm type 99-1 cannon had about the lowest velocity and one of the poorer rates of fire of any of the 20mm cannon used during the war. A6Ms with the 100 round magazines only started leaving the production lines in April of 1942, service use started when?

The Zero was an amazing design, unfortunately for the Japanese (and fortunately for the Allies) the Japanese were not able to update it in a timely fashion.
Increases in engine power (after the switch to the 2 speed engine) were very slow in coming, which meant there wasn't enough power to compensate for improved protection. Even such a simple thing as using cooled exhaust gases in the fuel tanks to suppress or reduce fires was late in coming.
 

Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...
 
buffnut453 said:
Funny how the Hurricane is such a deadbeat and yet many threads on this forum cite that the Wildcat was at least on par with the A6M. Clearly, I'm missing something...
Click to expand...
I completely understand your comment and frankly I can't explain it either. The Hurricane has a performance advantage over the Wildcat but I would say the Wildcat was tougher and I would prefer the 50 caliber machineguns. But there is a world of difference in how they did against the Japanese. I guess there aren't enough stats to know how the Wildcat would have done in Europe.
 
pinsog said:
Here is a test that shocked me between a 6 Gun Wildcat and a Seafire.

This makes me wonder how well an F4F-3 would have done considering how much performance dropped between the F4F-3 and the F4F-4
Click to expand...


I like the bit about the stubby little wings on the Martlet, which were 38ft in span or 1ft 2in longer than the Spitfire's wings.

If they were working up with planes that would be used in combat then the martlet model can probably be trimmed down to Martlet IV.
This is because the Martlet II and III (100 and 30 built respectively) would have been almost two years old in 1943.
The Martlet IV started deliveries in the summer of 1942 and 220 were built making a much more likely plane to being used in early 1943.

I would also note that the Martlet IV used a Aright R-1820 engine that was several hundred pounds lighter than the R-1830 used in the F4F-4.
One also wonders about the ammo load on such training flights. A 6 gun Martlet would be carrying 432lbs of ammo if it was carrying ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
Replies
1
Views
190
PAT303
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register