The one most over-rated plane of WWII

[nuuumannn]

So is your claim that the first year japanese pilots were worse or less trained?

Can you show me where I said that?

My point is obvious. Please don't read anything into it.

 

[R Leonard]

. . . This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. . . .

Interesting, since this A6M2 was not flown by a US pilot, LCDR Eddie Sanders, from Flight Test, before 16 September 1942 and the his initial report was dated 29 September 1942.

A later report, BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3, dated 4 November 1942, stated this in regards to comparison of the A6M2 and the F4F-4:

"COMPARISON WITH F4F-4: The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet, and is superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes are equal in level speed. In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius is limited by structural or physiological effects of acceleration (assuming that the allowable acceleration on the F4F is greater than that for the Zero). However advantage should be taken where possible, of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two."

 

[R Leonard]

See attached BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3, 4 Nov 1942

 

[PAT303]

I dont agree that the Zero would have been useless in Europe. If Goering had a lot of them in 1940 it would put his bomber force in reach of the North of England and Scotland that were only defended by squadrons that were still training and re forming in the later stages of the battle.

Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?.

 

[NTGray]

From Mikesh in Zero Fighter, "The Zero was superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1,000 feet, and was superior in service ceiling and range. Close to sea level, with the F4F-4 in neutral blower, the two planes were equal in level speed. In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut out in pushovers. There was no comparison between the turning circles of the two aircraft due to the relative wing loadings and resultant low stalling speed of the Zero."

This was the result of official testing of the two types at NAS North Island, San Diego in August 1942. Basically, the A6M2 Model 21 had better speed, better climb, better ceiling, better range and tighter turning circle than the F4F-4. Armed with cannon, the A6M was definitely the superior fighter, therefore it was better tactics and training that enabled the US Navy's F4F pilots to overcome the type.

It looks like we've got two sources, one a Japanese pilot and the other using flight tests from a captured and repaired Zero, saying that the Zero and Wildcat were about equal in dives, while many other sources, primarily F4F pilots who flew against Zeros in combat, reported that the F4F could run away from a Zero in a dive. But I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value. Also, at 300mph and above the Zero's ailerons were almost impossible to move; all the Wildcat had to do was turn (especially to the right) and the Zero was unable to follow.

I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.

 

[NTGray]

Not really. An expert combat pilot flying an inferior aircraft will beat an inexperienced pilot flying a superior aircraft almost every time.

The advantage was the US Navy pilots' training in the face of adversity. Without it, the superiority of the A6M would have been far more apparent.

Generally true, but only up to a certain point. The inferior plane has to be at least somewhat comparable. Somehow I don't think that well-trained American pilots flying Brewster Buffaloes would have done nearly as well. And the part about "training" did not involve magic; even the best-trained American Wildcat pilot could not beat a Zero in a classic dogfight. Rather, the Americans learned from combat experience what the Zero's weaknesses were and found a way to use the Wildcat's stronger points to good effect. They could not have done that if the Wildcat didn't have any strong points.

(But I will ask others with greater knowledge: would the Thach Weave have worked as well with Buffaloes?)

 

[DarrenW]

I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.

While there is much to learn learn from combat reports of the pilot's themselves, there are always unknown variables that could effect the actual outcome of a dogfight. When an enemy aircraft breaks off combat it could be doing so for a multitude of reasons, and some are not related purely to aircraft performance. Generally tactics play a huge role in whether or not to continue pursuit, as do things like target availability, mission requirements, damage sustained, ect.

That said, it's my opinion that Wildcat pilots were more confident in using the dive to break off combat while Zero drivers understood there was very little chance of effectively catching a Wildcat utilizing this tactic and often decided not to pursue.

Just my two cents...

 

[Just Schmidt]

[Shuffles papers and puts trial notes back in briefcase.]

I guess that's us told, then.

 

[R Leonard]

I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value

If you check the above BuAer Technical Intelligence Brief # 3 you will see that the USN pilots rated the A6M2 top speed as 326 mph at 16000 feet . . . just short of as fast as the standard issue was rated.

The 23rd FG/Holloway report indicates 289 mph at 15000 feet, so perhaps the AAF, remember this was in China, did not push their #3372 as hard as they might. I would suspect that there could be more to wring out of that machine at a dedicated testing facility in the states, but I've yet to discover the results of any such testing. The 23rd FG/Holloway tests were done just before the plane was being readied for flight to India from Kunming and shipment on to the states. Holloway's report notes up front:

"1. Subject airplane is a type Zero Mark I, Carrier Fighter Japanese No. P 5016. All
tests were conducted by the undersigned, and such conclusions and remarks contained herein
regarding performance as do not involve mathematical rates or measures are the opinion of
this officer.

"2. All tests were carried out at Kunming, China, and comparative performance with
the P-40K and P-43A1 aircraft tabulated. Inasmuch as the elevation of the Kunming airdrome
is above 5000 feet, the minimum altitude at which performance test were run was 10000 feet.

"3. Inasmuch as subject airplane is being flown to India this date, and numerous
photographs have already been forwarded, technical data given is brief and of a general
nature. Proper facilities do not exist at this station for complete disassembly and inspection of
parts, or for testing of materials. No dimensions are given as these are already known and
have been published by the Air Forces Intelligence Service."

The "P 5016" was the number the NCAF applied to the plane; the IJN B/N was 3372.

 

[J4F-2]

I think it is nice that you shared your feelings, after all only feelings matter. How do you feel about Grumman products?

Since you asked, I think the F6F series, especially the F6F-5 was probably the best all round fighter of the war.
Easy to fly, easy land, good at what it was designed to do, it took on all comers in both major theaters with a winning record.
Bordering on excellent in air to air, decent in air to ground with a passable ground delivery load out.
Not the flashiest or the fastest, kind of like a hammer, not much to look at, but damned good at what it was supposed to do.
Again, my opinion only and not up for discussion.
And BTW, don't let the Grumman logo make you think I'm biased. I do like Grumman Iron, but my passion/obsession is their amphibians, not so much the fighters, they're okay, but not my real thing. You want to get into pissing contest, start someting about the Widgeon, you'll lose.

 

[pbehn]

Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?.

For the distances involved this "what if" Zero could have had both armour protection and sealed tanks, depending how far you want to go up the coast. For an attack on Teesside there were only a few squadrons who could meet it and in August they were in bad shape. Or alternatively break through the Radar network in East Anglia once over land the ROC had real trouble tracking a raid for long distances. It is 297 miles direct Teesside to Amsterdam.

 

[pbehn]

Since you asked, I think the F6F series, especially the F6F-5 was probably the best all round fighter of the war.
Easy to fly, easy land, good at what it was designed to do, it took on all comers in both major theaters with a winning record.
Bordering on excellent in air to air, decent in air to ground with a passable ground delivery load out.
Not the flashiest or the fastest, kind of like a hammer, not much to look at, but damned good at what it was supposed to do.
Again, my opinion only and not up for discussion.
And BTW, don't let the Grumman logo make you think I'm biased. I do like Grumman Iron, but my passion/obsession is their amphibians, not so much the fighters, they're okay, but not my real thing. You want to get into pissing contest, start someting about the Widgeon, you'll lose.

The Widgeon's shadow was a waste of the water it was cast upon.

 

[J4F-2]

I wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
I'll wait.

 

[pbehn]

I wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
I'll wait.

It is my opinion and dat is de end of dat. Like your opinion that the P-51 turned up when the work was done, while in fact the only US fighter in service before it was the P-40 and that P-39 thing. I dont do amphibian aircraft discussions because I live on land and use runways. A Widgeon is a baby Catalina with all the issues that that entails.

 

[MCamp]

It looks like we've got two sources, one a Japanese pilot and the other using flight tests from a captured and repaired Zero, saying that the Zero and Wildcat were about equal in dives, while many other sources, primarily F4F pilots who flew against Zeros in combat, reported that the F4F could run away from a Zero in a dive. But I think I remember somebody writing that the captured Zero was flown conservatively; its top speed (IIRC) was reported as 285mph, which is a good 50mph less than the generally-accepted value. Also, at 300mph and above the Zero's ailerons were almost impossible to move; all the Wildcat had to do was turn (especially to the right) and the Zero was unable to follow.

I think I will go with what the F4F pilots reported in their after-combat reports.

if they wwere to roll right while diving, the zero couldn't follow that at speed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is my opinion and dat is de end of dat.

 

[nuuumannn]

Interesting, since this A6M2 was not flown by a US pilot, LCDR Eddie Sanders, from Flight Test, before 16 September 1942 and the his initial report was dated 29 September 1942.

Getting out my rather hefty copy of Mikesh's book again... tum tee tum... Yes, he states that the aircraft arrived at NAS North Island in August 1942...

Goering can say anything he likes, his pilots demanded armour protection after the Battle for France, what are you going to achieve flying to Scotland other than leaving a path of burning or pilotless Zero's anyway?

Yet another sweeping generalisation without any basis of fact based purely on prejudicial perception...

Generally true, but only up to a certain point. The inferior plane has to be at least somewhat comparable. Somehow I don't think that well-trained American pilots flying Brewster Buffaloes would have done nearly as well.

Well obviously, we are specifically referring to the F4F and A6M, but again, it depends on the pilot. If you have an excellent combat pilot in the F4F, he is gonna defeat the less experienced A6M pilot, hands down. Vice versa, if the Zero pilot is the more experienced, he's gonna get the better of the F4F with ease. Despite that though, the A6M2 was superior to the F4F in almost all major parameters.

As for the Buffalo, in British/Australian/New Zealand hands, Buffalos did better than perhaps what might have been expected against the A6M. Plenty of Commonwealth pilots shot down enemy fighters flying Buffalos in Malaya, the majority of whom were or were to become aces in their own right, but only a few became aces in the Buffalo. The highest scorer in the type with the RAF was New Zealander Geoff Fisken who had around 6 enemy aircraft confirmed, with shared kills as well, flying the Buffalo. His last kill in the type, in February 1942, was an A6M, which in the Buffalo he shot down at least two as confirmed kills.

Despite its reputation, the less experienced Australians and New Zealanders were pleased to be flying something modern; New Zealander Sgt Vic Bargh stated, "Well, we all thought they were good, you know. We didn't know they were out of date!"

 

[SaparotRob]

Okay, I read and watched a bunch of stuff about my beloved Buffalo. I am under the impression that the Buffalo never faced the Zero except at the Battle of Midway. Could those Zeros have been Ki-43s or even Ki-27s?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Buffalos faced A6M2s at Singapore, and in the NEI.

 

[SaparotRob]

And now I know. Thanks Greg. I'm taking that as Gospel.