That 21 miles of water makes a bigger difference than most would think.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The Soviets operated their P-39's close to the front and mostly for ground support.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
I would say the N1K2 Shiden Kai or "George". It's fans play it up as equal to or superior to the F6F or the F4U. Even assuming the plane was equal to the F6F or the F4U, and I think that is debatable, the fact is that Japan couldn't manufacture it in enough quantity for it to be a significant factor in the war. The F6F in particular made sacrifices in performance to enable higher production rates. Therefore the design of the aircraft itself is partially responsible for the fact that the F6F was almost always available in overwhelming numbers wherever it was committed.
Still, they were victorious over about any opposition they encountered in the first year. But I guess at one point they were obsolete.
(ignoring the P39 banter here)
That's a big exaggeration IMO. The Zero as never 'easy prey' to an F4F, it wasn't even easy prey to an F4U or F6F - when conditions were ideal, and well trained pilots were rare, the US pilots racked up some victories, but it didn't happen over night. We were still taking losses to A6M (and Ki 43) pilots fairly routinely all through 1943 and even in 1944.
Personally I think the Zero is underrated. It just didn't get the upgrades it needed, particularly to the engine, in time. But just because the Japanese ultimately lost the war doesn't mean they were a pushover in 1942, 1943 etc.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
According to "the numbers" the Zero did not do well against those fighters and for all this superiority it should have done way better against the Wildcat, as we know tactics played a lot into this. This piece was written earlier in the year. I haven't vetted the numbers referenced and you also have to consider overclaims on both sides.
"Consider the Battle of the Coral Sea. During the May 4 to 8, 1942 clash off the Solomons, U.S. Navy Wildcats shot down 14 A6Ms for a loss of just 10 aircraft.
Later that year – between Aug. 7 and Nov. 15 – Wildcats shot down 72 Zeros while losing 70. And, in the carrier vs. carrier battles during the same period, 43 Zeros were bagged at a cost of 31 Wildcats.
The numbers kept improving in the Grumman fighter's favor. By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal – Feb. 3, 1943 – records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators flying F4Fs shot down 5.9 Zeros for every one Wildcat lost. That ratio would eventually grow to 6.9:1."
Wildcat vs. Zero – How America's Grumman F4F Outfought the 'Superior' Mitsubishi A6M - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
Last edited:
Well the stats continue to be debated, certainly Thach Weave etc. helped, and the Wildcat had it's own advantages (I think it's a bit underrated).
But I'd like a closer look at those numbers at Guadalcanal especially. Are those numbers checked against Japanese loss records? It's hard to get a realistic sense of it because you have these 'Tinian Air Group' etc. fans who seem to say that the actual combat losses for the Japanese units were far lower than claimed. I read new books coming out by guys like Michael Claringbould where he's supposed to be checking all the numbers, and it looks like the A6M is coming out on top. It has been a while but IIRC 'First Team' kind of tells a similar story. I know sometimes the numbers get squeezed one way or another, but I think the jury is still out on some of that.
Clearly the A6M was inferior in terms of attrition war, which is what a lot of the Pacific War really turned out to be aside from the drama of Midway etc., but early on as a Strategic weapon it was very powerful, and on a Tactical level it was still quite a threat through the mid-war, IMO.
But I'd like a closer look at those numbers at Guadalcanal especially. Are those numbers checked against Japanese loss records? It's hard to get a realistic sense of it because you have these 'Tinian Air Group' etc. fans who seem to say that the actual combat losses for the Japanese units were far lower than claimed. I read new books coming out by guys like Michael Claringbould where he's supposed to be checking all the numbers, and it looks like the A6M is coming out on top. It has been a while but IIRC 'First Team' kind of tells a similar story. I know sometimes the numbers get squeezed one way or another, but I think the jury is still out on some of that.
Clearly the A6M was inferior in terms of attrition war, which is what a lot of the Pacific War really turned out to be aside from the drama of Midway etc., but early on as a Strategic weapon it was very powerful, and on a Tactical level it was still quite a threat through the mid-war, IMO.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'd think that 1942 figures (and 1944, for that matter) should be considered in part by factoring in the experience levels of the contestant naval air forces, which edge I think would belong to the Japanese at least until Santa Cruz.
After 1943, that differential would swing the other way, towards the Americans, as the (non-rotated) Japanese fighter pilots continued being whittled away.
After 1943, that differential would swing the other way, towards the Americans, as the (non-rotated) Japanese fighter pilots continued being whittled away.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Are those numbers comparing actual losses on both sides or are we looking at a mix of actual losses and claims? Just wanting to ensure we're comparing apples to apples.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Again I haven't vetted these numbers, I think they will slide only slightly in either direction but the point is even if we take the 6.9:1 and cut it in half, the Zero still should have fared way better IMO.
The Zero was a great platform at the beginning of the war but as it's been said countless times, tactics and better aircraft eclipsed it's supremacy.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
As mentioned, I haven't had a chance to vet those numbers
drgondog
Major
Given a good pilot, the A6M was simply much better than F4F. The Achilles heels of IJN were a.) too few highly skilled pilots, and b.) and, IMO, the Bushido/Samurai philosophy that shunned teamwork and flight element/finger four type flight integrity.
The Thatch Weave defensive strategy serious saved F4F lives vs the A6M through 1943.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Agree. And once the captured Zero was tested it's faults became known.
No. They operated in support of the ground support.
the first two data look reliable but the third..
so i did a search
JoeB wrote time ago:
".. but the point remains that the all-1942 average of Zero v F4F, which consisted of 100+ losses on each side, was pretty even (apparently a bit in the F4F's favor)."
"It may 'jumping in with ten league boots' again, but somebody quoted 6.9 ratio for F4F which is just not remotely realistic for real fighter-fighter kill ratio, that's the claimed ratio (approx anyway) v all types; the real ratio v Zero was around 1:1 in 1942, and doesn't seem to have dramatically risen in '43 Solomons combats before the F4F was phased out (not counting the FM-2's career in 1944-45). F4F's also met Type 1's over the Solomons in a few combats in early 1943 before the Japanese settled on using Army air units in NG and Navy ones in the Solomons. The outcomes were not vastly different than against Zeroes in those few cases, nor did the F4F pilots recognize immediately that they were facing a different opponent."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks for posting that Vincenzo - JoeB was a great participant, wish he was still around.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm still every bit as factual as Caidin.
