Macchi C.205 Vs. A6M5

[pops-paolo]

Are we required to land the fighter on the aircraft carrier after the flying part is done?

i don't think so

 

[tomo pauk]

i don't think so

Why would the Imperial Japanese Navy want to waste the Zeros?

 

[pops-paolo]

Why would the Imperial Japanese Navy want to waste the Zeros?

dude what are you talking about

 

[tomo pauk]

dude what are you talking about

About the fighter aircraft that air services/forces buying in order to those fighter aircraft do tasks. Imperial Japanese Navy mostly wanted a fighter that can serve from aircraft carriers, Zero did just that, the MC.205 did not.
So if the IJN buys the MC.205s, they are going to loose them (and their pilots) at an alarming rate, simply beause the MC.205s are unsuitable for what IJN needs.

 

[Bernhart]

the boy is Italian, don't believe you will convince him that anything not Italian is better.

 

[GregP]

The A6M5 Model; 52 was about 40 mph slower at top speed, but normal combat speed for both aircraft was in the neighborhood of 300 mph. Absolutely nobody accelerated to maximum horizontal velocity and then just happened to join combat. They were at cruise speed, saw enemy fighters, and accelerated while closing and configuring for combat. If one or the other wanted to escape combat, then max speed or dive speed might be a consideration, but during combat? No.

The Bf 109 was hardly ever the fastest fighter in the sky and managed to shoot down more enemy fighters than any other single airplane, so top speed clearly does not win all fights.

The Macchi was a good airplane that never saw combat against any A6M Zero model. I have heard people say the P-51 was the best U.S. fighter and was also the best of the war. But, the F6F Hellcat had a better kill to loss ratio. "Best of the war" ignores the others ... the Spitfire, the Bf 109, the A6M, the Ki-100, the Ki-84, the N1KJ, the Yak-3/9, the La-5/7, the Tempest, the P-47, etc and also doesn define what the particular fighter was "best" at doing.

The M.C. 205 range was around 590 miles, so the radius of action was only about 300 miles or less. An A6M5 could fly that radius more than twice and still have reserve fuel.

So, what exactly is the M,C. 205 better at than the A6M5 except top speed and dive speed? The A6M is not very good at being Italian but, otherwise, is an excellent fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

and the m.c205 has 20 mils too plus 12.7s while the Japanese still has 7.7s

In the real world there are differences between different 12.7mm machine guns and certainly different 20mm guns.
In computer games not so much. One popular game uses the same range, rate of fire and damage model for ALL 20mm guns.

The Italian 12.7mm gun used about the same power round as the Japanese army 12.7mm gun but much less powerful than the Japanese navy 13.2mm round.
The Italian gun also suffered a very large rate of fire loss when synchronized. some times down to 400rpm. While some people claim it had more range than the British .303 (Japanese used the same cartridge) actual difference might not be all that great. The Vickers/Italian/Japanese 12.7mm round had almost identical velocity to the 7.7mm bullets and were rather short and stubby for 12.7mm bullets so they didn't have the best sectional density or ballistic coefficient. Difference in time of flight to 600 yds/meters would be a few hundredths of a second. The 12.7mm will hit harder when it lands but has no practical advantage in trajectory or reduced lead in deflection shots.

The two Itialian 12.7mm are better armament than two Japanese 7.7mm guns but perhaps not as big an advantage as some people may think.

 

[pops-paolo]

About the fighter aircraft that air services/forces buying in order to those fighter aircraft do tasks. Imperial Japanese Navy mostly wanted a fighter that can serve from aircraft carriers, Zero did just that, the MC.205 did not.
So if the IJN buys the MC.205s, they are going to loose them (and their pilots) at an alarming rate, simply beause the MC.205s are unsuitable for what IJN needs.

bro its a 1v1 stop over complicating it
here is the situation there are two islands 10km away from each other surrounded by ocean. After take-off both runways get blown up and they fight to the death. Clear skies, zero wind, 0% humidity, sea level 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[pops-paolo]

In the real world there are differences between different 12.7mm machine guns and certainly different 20mm guns.
In computer games not so much. One popular game uses the same range, rate of fire and damage model for ALL 20mm guns.

The Italian 12.7mm gun used about the same power round as the Japanese army 12.7mm gun but much less powerful than the Japanese navy 13.2mm round.
The Italian gun also suffered a very large rate of fire loss when synchronized. some times down to 400rpm. While some people claim it had more range than the British .303 (Japanese used the same cartridge) actual difference might not be all that great. The Vickers/Italian/Japanese 12.7mm round had almost identical velocity to the 7.7mm bullets and were rather short and stubby for 12.7mm bullets so they didn't have the best sectional density or ballistic coefficient. Difference in time of flight to 600 yds/meters would be a few hundredths of a second. The 12.7mm will hit harder when it lands but has no practical advantage in trajectory or reduced lead in deflection shots.

The two Italian 12.7mm are better armament than two Japanese 7.7mm guns but perhaps not as big an advantage as some people may think.

not true actually 20 mm models are not all the same and the 12.7s would punch right through unlike the 7.7

 

[pops-paolo]

The A6M5 Model; 52 was about 40 mph shower at top speed, but normal combat speed for both aircraft was in the neighborhood of 300 mph. Absolutely nobody accelerated to maximum horizontal velocity and then just happened to join combat. They were at cruise speed, saw enemy fighters, and accelerated while closing and configuring for combat. If one or the other wanted to escape combat, then max speed or dive speed might be a consideration, but during combat? No.

The Bf 109 was hardly ever the fastest fighter in the sky and managed to shoot down more enemy fighters than any other single airplane, so top speed clearly does not win all fights.

The Macchi was a good airplane that never saw combat against any A6M Zero model. I have heard people say the P-51 was the best U.S. fighter and was also the best of the war. But, the F6F Hellcat had a better kill to loss ratio. "Best of the war" ignores the others ... the Spitfire, the Bf 109, the A6M, the Ki-100, the Ki-84, the N1KJ, the Yak-3/9, the La-5/7, the Tempest, the P-47, etc and also doesn define what the particular fighter was "best" at doing.

The M.C. 205 range was around 590 miles, so the radius of action was only about 300 miles or less. An A6M5 could fly that radius more than twice and still have reserve fuel.

So, what exactly is the M,C. 205 better at than the A6M5 except top speed and dive speed? The A6M is not very good at being Italian but, otherwise, is an excellent fighter.

lamo they seem so equal in a 1v1 environment but in warfare the macchi has more ammo to allow it fight more
but speed is almost the most important part

 

[FLYBOYJ]

lamo they seem so equal in a 1v1 environment but in warfare the macchi has more ammo to allow it fight more
but speed is almost the most important part

Not true!!! Very important but acceleration would be more important in this match up and of course pilot skill would be a great factor as well as "who spotted who" first. Learn about wing loading - the Zero had almost half the wing loading of the 205

 

[pops-paolo]

Not true!!! Very important but acceleration would be more important in this match up and of course pilot skill would be a great factor as well as "who spotted who" first. Learn about wing loading - the Zero had almost half the wing loading of the 205

bro the Italian plane after meeting the a6m5 would dive then with that speed increase altitude turn around and light him up

 

[GrauGeist]

So then, how is it that the A6M5 was downing the F4U s late as 1944/1945?

It was much faster than the MC.205...

 

[pops-paolo]

Not true!!! Very important but acceleration would be more important in this match up and of course pilot skill would be a great factor as well as "who spotted who" first. Learn about wing loading - the Zero had almost half the wing loading of the 205

ok he would be able to slightly out climb but the c.205 would not be far behind

 

[pops-paolo]

So then, how is it that the A6M5 was downing the F4U s late as 1944/1945?

It was much faster than the MC.205...

idk why do people die in war?
like it is going to happen the Macchi would not win 100 percent of the time shit happens but According to US Navy stats, they counted an 11:1 kill ratio in Corsair vs Zero

 

[pops-paolo]

pops-paolo
cool i learned i can at people on this

 

[msxyz]

sorta but the 205 had a better flight performance in general

The Mc.205 was the fastest of the -5 series, but while regarded as a good fighter, the Germans seemed to prefer the G.55 (Kurt Tank himself tested a G.55 and had nothing but praises for the Italian design); while the British considered the Re.2005 superior to their own Spitfires IX in all aspects and the most difficult opponent to battle.

About the fighter aircraft that air services/forces buying in order to those fighter aircraft do tasks. Imperial Japanese Navy mostly wanted a fighter that can serve from aircraft carriers, Zero did just that, the MC.205 did not.
So if the IJN buys the MC.205s, they are going to loose them (and their pilots) at an alarming rate, simply beause the MC.205s are unsuitable for what IJN needs.

Though late to the party, Italy finally decided to convert a pair of fast liners into aircraft carriers, more for a question of prestige than real need. War ended before they could reach an operational state but the Italians also tested several existing Italian and German aircraft designs. They finally settled on a navalized version of the Reggiane Re.2001 (powered by the Alfa Romeo Monsone, a version of the DB601 re-engineerd to be manufactured in Italy with the tools and alloys available at the time) and a navalized version of the Ju-87 Stucka with folding wings. They also tested a fighter-bomber version of the G.55. which could even carry an aerial torpedo as payload, but the armistice halted any research on that.

Truth to be told, I think all Italian designs of the period would fare well if adapted for carrier use: they had a fairly low wing loading, excellent handling and were quite pleasant to fly. Of course no other plane had the endurance advantage of the Zero, but that came at the well known cost of strength of the airframe and lack of protection both for the pilot and for the vital parts of the plane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ok he would be able to slightly out climb but the c.205 would not be far behind

Again, learn about wing loading. There's a lot more to aerial combat than speed. In a turning fight I don't think the 205 would out turn a Zero if speeds got below 250 (which they frequently did)

 

[pops-paolo]

Again, learn about wing loading. There's a lot more to aerial combat than speed. In a turning fight I don't think the 205 would out turn a Zero if speeds got below 250 (which they frequently did)

yes but the macchi would not need to turn he would dive

 

[Clayton Magnet]

not true actually 20 mm models are not all the same and the 12.7s would punch right through unlike the 7.7

You misunderstood S Shortround6 post, he clearly said that the 20mm cannons were NOT all the same. Just as all the 13mm/12.7mm/50 Caliber machine guns were different. And the Italian Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm guns were among the least efficient of all. They were heavy, relatively slow firing, with relatively low powered ammunition, just as S Shortround6 clearly said. Perhaps the best of the breed, as far as 12.7mm aircraft machine guns go, was the Russian Berezin UB. Relatively light weight, simple operation, high rate of fire, and powerful ammunition.
While the Breda-SAFAT was probably a considerable upgrade as opposed to the Type 97 7.7mm in the A6M, the distinction wouldn't be as obvious as you'd think.