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
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
Keeping in mind that the Wildcat didn't have armour until well after Pearl Harbor.
I can only quote a source that appeared to me to be trustworthy:
"By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal on February 3rd, 1943, records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators shot down 5.9 Zeros for every Wildcat lost. When the Japanese surrendered in September 1945, the Wildcat to Zero exchange ratio had increased to 6.9 to one."
Wildcat vs. Zero – Resetting the Record
Conventional wisdom says that the performance of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen (Zero) was far superior to the Grumman F4F Wildcat. However, if that is truly the c
marcliebman.com
buffnut453
Captain
I can only quote a source that appeared to me to be trustworthy:
"By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal on February 3rd, 1943, records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators shot down 5.9 Zeros for every Wildcat lost. When the Japanese surrendered in September 1945, the Wildcat to Zero exchange ratio had increased to 6.9 to one."
Anybody have more precise information?Wildcat vs. Zero – Resetting the Record
Conventional wisdom says that the performance of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen (Zero) was far superior to the Grumman F4F Wildcat. However, if that is truly the c
I suspect he's using claims of Zeros shot down vs actual Wildcat losses...but happy to be proven wrong.
Sometimes different sources will say different things, but this one says, "The remaining F4F-3As were handed over to the US Navy, which quickly field-modified them. Starting in September 1941 the cockpits had built in armor, as in the F4F-3 version. Following the outbreak of war other modifications were incorporated. Self-sealing fuel tanks, additional cockpit armor, , ,
Grumman F4F Wildcat (p.5)
Shortround6
Major General
Define "well after"
From Mr Williams site.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
Report No. 1469A
August 12, 1941
Detail Specification
For
Model F4F-3 Airplane
F4F Performance Trials
WWII Aircraft Performance, wartime flight trials and reports of F4F aircraft.F4F data.
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
I am not saying that all F4F-3s got them or even most.
But certainly 4 months before Pearl Harbor the intention was there, the weight specifications were there, the performance specifications with the extra weight were there.
Planes that were in use may have take time to modify but if they were doing that for the F4F-3 then how many F4F-4s were built without armor or protected tanks?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
I based my comment from this source, albeit, probably a shaky one at best...
"The French had sought some refinements to the G-36 design: A reflector gunsight was fitted and, according to FAA Observer David Brown, some armour and fuel tank protection was installed in this variant. The USN would not get the reflector site on its Wildcats until 1941, nor armour until 1942."
Armoured Aircraft Carriers
An overview of the production models of the Grumman Martlet, its evolution and changing specifications.
www.armouredcarriers.com
Perhaps you should do a bit more reading, because it appears you are shooting from the hip and hanging on to old preconceptions and the typical US stereotypes around the aircraft. Zeros were fitted with armour plating in their career, and self-sealing tanks. As mentioned in an earlier post, it took the Japanese hierarchy longer to do so than other countries. Placing that on the Zero ignores this fundamental truth.
As for the Wildcat against the Zero, again, you and too many others simply ignore that the Zero outperformed the Wildcat in almost every way in 1941/1942. The US Navy pilots had to take measures in changing their tactics because the Japanese had a weapon with which they could beat them. Again, I'm pretty certain Jimmy Thach didn't regard the Zero as "overrated".
As for manoeuvrability being the sole thing the Zero has going for it, seriously? From 1940 to 1942 the A6M was the world's best carrier based fighter, mind you, as I've mentioned, the competition isn't sterling, but that is an undisputed fact. It was capable of the same or better speeds than its carrier based contemporaries, it had a far greater range than its contemporaries, apart from the Fulmar and its eight machine guns it had equal if not better armament than its contemporaries, and it was available in numbers, not to mention the general aptitude displayed by its pilots. The Zero was the top of the food chain from when it entered service for the next two years, so I reckon it didn't have just manoeuvrability going for it.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Marine F4F-3s at Wake had bulletproof windscreens and reflector sights but not back armor. Only one had self-sealing tanks.
Yup, and not every F4F-3 that had been delivered to the navy had been modified by the time the Japanese attacked Pearl, but our friend keeps ignoring these pesky facts in an attempt to discredit the Zero. As recounted earlier, the Japanese were patently aware of these shortcomings in their aircraft, but took their time about implementing them (I distinctly recall making a wise crack at how the Japanese war council actively worked against its combat units at times), whereas the US armed forces acted relatively quickly and both the AAF and the navy had aircraft equipped with them by the time they went into action. Not every aircraft, but more than they had beforehand.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
VF-6 aboard Enterprise fitted their F4F-3s with improvised back armor prior to 1Feb '42 Marshall Islands raid. Don't know about the Lexington air group. I'm guessing that the changeover from unarmored windscreen to armored windscreen happened at the same time as the introduction of reflector sights. Telescopic sight protruded through earlier windscreen.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think "The First Team" (John Lundstrom) has a more accurate picture of this (I don't have a copy of the book). A comment about this subject from another forum:I can only quote a source that appeared to me to be trustworthy:
"By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal on February 3rd, 1943, records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators shot down 5.9 Zeros for every Wildcat lost. When the Japanese surrendered in September 1945, the Wildcat to Zero exchange ratio had increased to 6.9 to one."
Anybody have more precise information?Wildcat vs. Zero – Resetting the Record
Conventional wisdom says that the performance of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero-Sen (Zero) was far superior to the Grumman F4F Wildcat. However, if that is truly the c
"From February through June 1942, the Navy's fighting squadrons shot down seventeen Japanese carrier fighters (three Mitsubishi A5M4 Type 96 carrier fighters and fourteen Zero fighters, with sixteen pilots killed), while losing to them in aerial combat only ten Wildcats (seven pilots killed)." Since the book recounts virtually every air battle usually from both sides these figures are about as accurate as you are going to get, albeit the sample
Maybe someone on here who has "The First Team" can add to this.
I watched the link, interesting, would like to see the presentation. I couldn't agree more with his synopsis, just from watching that passage, but basically speaking about the aircraft and its qualities versus is weaknesses-wise, and that's what the opposition to the Zero from NT Gray and Pat 308 is about, the record speaks for itself - why would such a thing be necessary if the Zero was a non-threat that could easily be disregarded? The F4F did not have the performance compared to the Zero but you put good quality airmen in it, against good quality airmen in the Japanese - no one could accuse them of being otherwise in the opening stages of the Pacific War and results speak volumes.
For the Naval Aviation Combat Statistic - WWII
the F4F destroyed (for clear this are just claims, awarded claims but it's a different thing from actual plane destroyed) 905 enemy airplane (487 fighters) for the loss of 178
In the alone 1941/42 was 715 japanese plane "destroyed" (355 fighters) for the loss of 122; 715/122=~5,9
In the 1943 was 190 japanese plane "destroyed" (132 fighters) for the loss of 56; 190/56=~3,4
so i think that source is not good
the F4F destroyed (for clear this are just claims, awarded claims but it's a different thing from actual plane destroyed) 905 enemy airplane (487 fighters) for the loss of 178
In the alone 1941/42 was 715 japanese plane "destroyed" (355 fighters) for the loss of 122; 715/122=~5,9
In the 1943 was 190 japanese plane "destroyed" (132 fighters) for the loss of 56; 190/56=~3,4
so i think that source is not good
Last edited:
Counting only Zeroes, that's a 14:10 ratio (or 1.3:1, which is a figure I came across and cited earlier). Meaning that in terms of simple effectiveness, the Wildcat was at least as good as the Zero.
Comments added in bold
And now this:
Hmmm. Looks to me like the Wildcat has more advantages and fewer disadvantages than the Zero. But the one thing that really matters is the results: the Wildcat:Zero kill ratio was actually close to equal (slight advantage to the Wildcat) in the early days when the Zero was gaining that "superplane" reputation. As time went on, the ratio tilted strongly in favor of the Wildcat.
And now this:
| Zero advantages: Long range Maneuverability at normal combat speeds high rate of climb Better pilot visibility Heavier guns: 2x 20mm (with 2x .30 caliber) | Zero disadvantages: Useless radios (often discarded to save weight) No armor Lighter overall construction Poor maneuverability above 200mph 20mm slow rate of fire, limited rounds (60 per gun) .30 caliber too light to be effective alone Different gun types did not converge well (20mm shells were slower & dropped sooner) |
| Wildcat advantages: Faster diving speed More maneuverable at higher speed Armor & self-sealing gas tanks More rugged overall construction Guns more than adequate to kill a Zero (6x .50 caliber) Greater ammo capacity Useful radio, allowing coordinated tactics Teamwork & training as experience was gained | Wildcat disadvantages: Less range Lower rate of climb Less pilot visibility Less maneuverable at combat speeds |
Hmmm. Looks to me like the Wildcat has more advantages and fewer disadvantages than the Zero. But the one thing that really matters is the results: the Wildcat:Zero kill ratio was actually close to equal (slight advantage to the Wildcat) in the early days when the Zero was gaining that "superplane" reputation. As time went on, the ratio tilted strongly in favor of the Wildcat.
GregP posted a test on here and IIRC it showed the Zeros roll didn't really start to degrade until about 280mph, which in turn covers a much larger swath of the fighting speeds.
GregP,
Please repost or link to your report (I couldn't find it).
Cheers,
Biff
GregP,
Please repost or link to your report (I couldn't find it).
Cheers,
Biff
buffnut453
Captain
I take a number of those criteria with a huge pinch of salt. The Zero had no problems maneouvering at speeds above 200mph. It was a different proposition above 300mph...but the 200-300 range was not a problem.
Also, including "Teamwork and training" as an attribute for the Wildcat is spurious. That's an operational employment issue, not a trait of the airframe itself. A world-beating aircraft can become a sitting duck if it's flown poorly or employs inappropriate tactics.
Also, including "Teamwork and training" as an attribute for the Wildcat is spurious. That's an operational employment issue, not a trait of the airframe itself. A world-beating aircraft can become a sitting duck if it's flown poorly or employs inappropriate tactics.
Only the Zeros roll rate degraded above 300 mph, the elevators still worked just fine. And from I believe the Australian test, they said it could loop from cruise speed, I believe 210 mph, and GAIN altitude. The AM6-21 that were tested by the US were also reasonably fast, coming in around 330-335 mph without overboost (which the US didn't use, didn't know it had or could make it work or something) With overboost it was estimated to do 345 mph.
Let's also remember that the roll rate of the early Spitfire and Me109 was very poor at high speed as well. The Australian test mentions the Spitfire could outroll the Zero at high speed, just barely. The P40 had a great high speed roll and was fast as long as the Zero came down below 15,000 feet to play, but the Zero had the option of staying above the P40 if it wanted to.
It's kind of funny but the roll rate for the Zero gets worse every time it's mentioned. (As soon as a zero retracts the landing gear his roll rate goes to nothing!!) I've read of good roll (at least matching whatever they were testing it against) as high as 320 mph, but most sources agree to stay above 300 mph in a fight. Easier to do that in a 400 mph Corsair or P38 than in a 315 mph Wildcat or Hurricane.
Let's also remember that the roll rate of the early Spitfire and Me109 was very poor at high speed as well. The Australian test mentions the Spitfire could outroll the Zero at high speed, just barely. The P40 had a great high speed roll and was fast as long as the Zero came down below 15,000 feet to play, but the Zero had the option of staying above the P40 if it wanted to.
It's kind of funny but the roll rate for the Zero gets worse every time it's mentioned. (As soon as a zero retracts the landing gear his roll rate goes to nothing!!) I've read of good roll (at least matching whatever they were testing it against) as high as 320 mph, but most sources agree to stay above 300 mph in a fight. Easier to do that in a 400 mph Corsair or P38 than in a 315 mph Wildcat or Hurricane.
2 other advantages a Zero had that people fail to mention.
1. The bubble canopy. A Zero pilot had about the same field of view as I do sitting in a lawn chair in my driveway. If a Zero pilot wasn't asleep or in a neck brace then you weren't going to sneak up on him.
2. Acceleration. You may be X many mph faster than a Zero, but if your running side by side at 200 mph and both pin the throttle he will gain a few lengths on you before you finally catch up and eventually leave him behind. If he's behind you he only needs 2-3 seconds to fill you full of lead
1. The bubble canopy. A Zero pilot had about the same field of view as I do sitting in a lawn chair in my driveway. If a Zero pilot wasn't asleep or in a neck brace then you weren't going to sneak up on him.
2. Acceleration. You may be X many mph faster than a Zero, but if your running side by side at 200 mph and both pin the throttle he will gain a few lengths on you before you finally catch up and eventually leave him behind. If he's behind you he only needs 2-3 seconds to fill you full of lead
