Worst aircraft of WW2?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually a military force that is not prepared to fight its enemies no matter how numerical is an "ill-prepared force". That does not make it a "bad force". I personally think that up to about 1942/1943 it is was the best Air Force in the world, but that does not mean it was "prepared" for the task at hand.
I suspect what we are trying to say here is that the LW were optimized for Tactical Strikes, in a land-mass connected theatre of war (like Europe for example).
Cross-channel strategic campaigns were not their best card, so to speak - right ?
Yep - and later 'bomber' versions of the Lightning - P38L and Q I think - the special leader version with the Snoot for the bombadier
There you go. The German Lufwaffe was never intended to do any strategic bombing (it was ruled out very soon in the development of the air force. Since Wever was killed in an air crash and the Ural bomber concept was scrapped, the german air force never gave a second thought to strategic campaigns until they saw it as the only way to bring UK to their knees in 1940. In the meantime the Luftwaffe had wiped the european skies out of enemy oposition and cleared the way of the wehrmacht to conquest half europe. And after the BoB they kept doing the same until sheer enemy numbers weighed too much.
That wasn't under any perspective an "Ill-prepared force". It was a brilliant tool to do what they were asked and planned to do- Tactical air support, air superiority tasks and limited deep strikes against enemy air bases to wipe enemy AFs on the ground. That they lacked the ability to propoer conduct a strategic bombing is trivial. And anyway compare the 1939 Luftwaffe with the rest of the contending air forces. The RAF was only adept at defending britain (and that only because of dowding). Bomber Command was a disaster until 1943 and there was no organized army support at all until very late 1942. I need not to talk about the Regia Aeronautica. The French Air force lacked tools to do ANYTHING properly. The Red Air Force lacked proper tactics and most of its models were hopelessy outdated. The USAAF at the time was a very small force without the forces needed to wage a war. The IJA had placed too much emphasis on a kind of aircraft that later proved itself to be as dangerous to it's pilot as for the enemy. Etc.
From all the air forces in the world in 1939, the Luftwaffe was by far the best. Yet it was "ill-prepared" to wage a war?....I guess the rest of the air forces in the world were cronically sick, then.
AS for the mosquito example-I didn't mention it at all and for a good reason
. Still, attacking an enemy without proper air support they'd have suffered serious losses nonetheless. In any case my point was brought up to probe the case about the models mentioned as "possible worsts" in that imfamous list (He111 or Ju87) being in fact very able tools which gave a very good account of themselves, and don't deserve to be in said list.As for the Zero. IJN pilot training was the best in the world in 1941. Probably their pilots were among the best in the world because the harsh requirements to enter that force by then. Still, the plane wasn't well suited to be a good fighter for WW2 requirements, and the training was still faulty nonetheless when it came to tactical "teamplay". By New Guinea times the standard japanese "flight" was still of 3 aircraft, they still had not adopted the "finger four". Team tactics were very limited or non-existant.
And the plane itself wasn't really good. It had a decent top speed but an underaverage acceleration and climbrate. Worse yet, WW2 air combat proved the fact that energy or/and hit and run tactics were the war winners, not low speed maneouverability. Japanese planes until 1944 (and with the expection of the Ki44) put too much emphasis in low speed flying qualities and maneouverability, and not enough to high speed tactics, dive, zoom, firepower and protection. And those latter were the parameters which defined a great fighter at the era. The Zero lacked them all.
The zero only shined in the initial parts of the Far Eastern war, when the japanese attacked second or third line air forces with untrained pilots that insisted in entering close fights vs them. However, the Zero failed ALWAYS to provide air superiority when properly trained enemies (Even in an inferior plane as the Wildcat) showed up to fight against them (see: US Navy or USMC). When the USAAF also adopted teamwork and high speed tactics to fight the japanese, the Zero also failed to provide even while the opposition was in mediocre planes such as the P39 or P40. See the fights over New Guinea.
And when better planes came into service (F6F, F4U, P38, P51, P47, Spitfire), of course the japanese were wiped out of the sky, for now they had the inferior tactics AND the inferior plane.
The Zero was a decent embarked fighter, and certainly was one of the best fighters of the PAcific Theater (because the british had their better fighters at europe) in 19491. But certainly was no "terminator of the air" and no excellent fighter at all. Compare it's performance with the standard fighters flying over europe at the time (109F, Spitfire Mk.V, Fw190) performance wise and tactically wise, and you'll see exactly how much obsolete it was.
Finally "the zero was a dangerous foe if well piloted until 1945". Well, yes. polish parasol P.11s fighters did give a surprise to much better german fighters in 1939 now and then. Doesn't retract from the fact that the fighter was hopeless, and that was obsolete, and that it had no chance to fight succesfully in the WW2 skies. A P26 shot a Zero over the Phillipines in 1941, that means the P26 with good pilots was "a Dangerous foe in 1941"? hell no. It means a P26 pilot had the skill (And the luck) to accomplish it, but the plane was a piece of crap for 1941 standards.
The Zero was a barely acceptable fighter for 1941 standards, was well obsolete by 1943 and was completelly and hopelessy outdated for 1945. In short: it was no miracle or marvel at all.
/edit: a little add-on. While the germans did not give stategic bombings a real serious thought until the BoB was forced upon them, they still were about to force the fighter command collapse just at the time that the main offensive focus was changed towards area bombings on english cities, and so, they were very close winning the BoB (tho it woudl've served nothing, SeaLion was an impossibility for Germany at the times, RAF in or out of the fight or not). So that qualifies them as teh best strategic bomber air force of 1940 in the world.
Not only that, at a time when bomber command (a command created for strategic bombing and assumed to have good enough night navigation and striking ability) was dropping leaflets all over the german countryside (because they failed to find their targets consistently), the germans already had several pathfinder night bombers to conduct high-precision night attacks against Britain thanks to their bombing aids based on lorenz beams. That those systems failed to deliver was 100% attributable to Ultra - something completely out of scope for the Luftwaffe- and some very brilliant guys in charge of the British Scientific Intelligence room of MI6.
So- by 1940 we have the best tactical air force in the world
the best strategical air force in the world
The best fighter force in the world (tied up with RAF's Fighter Command, slightly better or slightly worse depends on opinion, but it was roughly on par)
The best night bombing air force in the world
The best naval attack air force in the world (as FLiegerkorps X shown in january 1941 over the Illustrious and british convoys to Malta, latter greece, and later Crete)
Yet that air force was "ill suited" for the task?.
Yeah, right.
Last edited:
Of course it is! Why cant you see the contradiction in your own post? They were very well equipped for short range tactical warfare - and then sent on long range strategic missions, er hello?
Yours assertions about Germany almost winning the BoB are also well wide of the mark, (British strength increased during the Battle as German strength declined) but that belongs in a different thread. Also, RAF Fighter Command was de facto the best fighter force in the world in 1940. Opinion doesn't come into it. while the planes and pilots were the German fighter force, in Britain they were just an important element in a chain that included ground based radars and fighter control, essential elements upon which all subsequent fighter defence screens were modelled. And thats before you look at the upper management
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Appendix 5 in the "First Team" goes into detail about IJN carrier pilots and their combat methods. I cannot, being a hunt and peck typist, record all these details here. The "route" formation was similar to the British VIC but was not used in combat. During combat the IJN adopted much more loose formations than the RAF. The IJN pilots liked to use firing passes from high astern and high side using medium to low deflection shooting. They would charge down on the target, fire and then pull out underneath and ahead to climb out of reach. " In 1943, the lack of experienced pilots compelled the IJN to adopt the 2-2 formation of two-plane Butai comprising a four-plane Shotai"
In 1944, Boone Guyton, the main test pilot for the Corsair, flew the Zero and was very impressed with it's astounding maneuverability below 220 mph, its incredible rate of climb at SL of around 4500 fpm and it's Vmax on the deck of 300 mph.
In the comparison tests in December, 1942, between a Zero 21 and various US fighters, the Zero was superior in climb to the P38F up to about 20000 feet. The Zero against the P39-D1, the P39 was superior in ROC up to 10000 feet where the Zero gained superiority and there was no contest from there on up. All tests were not completed because the P39 ran out of fuel. Against the P51( Allison) the Zero climbed sharply away from the Mustang from 5000 to 10000 feet and from 10000 to 15000 feet. Above 15000 feet the tests were terminated because the P51 power plant failed to operate properly. Against the P40F the tests were not able to be completed because full power could not be obtained by the P40. The Zero was superior in speed and climb to the F4F4 at all altitudes above 1000 feet. Between 5000 and 19000 feet, the Zero was slightly superior to the F4U1 in ROC. The Zero, particularly in the early war was noted for it's good ROC.
In 1944, Boone Guyton, the main test pilot for the Corsair, flew the Zero and was very impressed with it's astounding maneuverability below 220 mph, its incredible rate of climb at SL of around 4500 fpm and it's Vmax on the deck of 300 mph.
In the comparison tests in December, 1942, between a Zero 21 and various US fighters, the Zero was superior in climb to the P38F up to about 20000 feet. The Zero against the P39-D1, the P39 was superior in ROC up to 10000 feet where the Zero gained superiority and there was no contest from there on up. All tests were not completed because the P39 ran out of fuel. Against the P51( Allison) the Zero climbed sharply away from the Mustang from 5000 to 10000 feet and from 10000 to 15000 feet. Above 15000 feet the tests were terminated because the P51 power plant failed to operate properly. Against the P40F the tests were not able to be completed because full power could not be obtained by the P40. The Zero was superior in speed and climb to the F4F4 at all altitudes above 1000 feet. Between 5000 and 19000 feet, the Zero was slightly superior to the F4U1 in ROC. The Zero, particularly in the early war was noted for it's good ROC.
There's no contradiction. At all. You're missing the point. No air force in 1939 (in fact no air force until 1944' USAAF, and to a point, RAF) was suited to conduct **EVERY** role a modern air force had to conduct during WW2. And German bomber force didn't really do a bad job during the BoB, btw.
Faulty tactics enforced by Göring and a wrong switch of operational targets forced by Hitler killed the campaign, not the lack of quality of the german bomber force (which had models that weren't really the best for the task, but they sure gave an excellent account of themselfs nonetheless).
Yes, the German air force didn't have B-17s in 1940. Guess what, that didn't turn them into an ill-prepared force: they still were the only air force of the era able to conduct a quite succesful strategic bombing campaign on another nation, even though it had never been designed for that role when it was built.
We're talking about 1941-43 here (at least I am, after 1943 there's simply nothing to debate as the Zero was totally outclassed).
Zeros over NG were still using Vic formations on fighter sweeps over Port Moresby. in 1942.
A good number of Zeros over NG, Guadalcanal, and quite some embarked models lacked a radio set. in 1942.
IJN training schemes put extreme emphasis on aerobatics, and too little in teamwork. This still held true by 1945.
Those three points alone give the IJN air complements a very low rating teamwork-wise and tactically wise.
Every pilot who flew a zero was amazed by its low speed maneouverability. I guess that had Boone Guyton flown a WW1 Dr-1 triplane he'd been amazed by it's under-80mph turn rate and maneouverability.
But, would've that turned the DR-1 into a worthy fighter for WW2?. No. And his comments on the low speed maneouverability of the zero don't qualify the model as a succesful fighter any more than that.
Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights. Otherwise jets woud've never been the next step, and Biplanes would've been the best fighters around. Yet Speed, hi-speed maneouverability, dive, zoom, toughness, firepower and visibility were the vital performance stats of top-class fighters of WW2. That was why the CR-42 fell in droves against hurricanes. That was why the Gladiator was retired from service. That was why by the end of the war high speed planes as the Gloster Meteor, Me262, P80, etc, heralded the new era of the jet fighters. None of those planes could turn with a propeller driven aircraft under 250mph IAS. But they were the future because they were better in what mattered. Turning ability at low speeds meant nothing.
The Zero failed in most of those departments. It excelled at low speed turnings. In short: the Zero wasn't a top-class WW2 fighter for his era (I insist, Fw190, Bf109F, Spitfire MkV-IX. Those were the top dogs. The zero was a sub-par figher that did great at the DEI because they fought elderly machines flown by hopelessy unexperienced pilots).
Pure hyperbole, that's a myth. The A6M2 did at it's best some 2700fpm at sea level, and steadily fell as altitude increased. By that time the Spitfire Mkv was able to (barely) hit 3500fpm at sea level, the german 109F4 was hitting 3900, and the Fw190A1 was good for around 3700fpm. All of them had better powerloading than the japanese fighter.
The whole 4500fpm myth is that, a myth. It comes from a wrong transcription of documents coming from some time back. There's no phisical way a 2800kg machine with a 950hp engine can climb that fast. The power delivered is not up to the task to achieve it, and that without taking propeller eficiency into the equation.
As a comparison, 4500fpm is a bit under what a Bf109G10 was able to achieve in 1944. The 109G10 was a roughly 3400kg plane with a 1800hp engine (DB605ASM with Mw50 injection and B4 fuel). Do the powerloading, or power to weight (As you wish to call it) math to see how impossible are the claims about the Zero making 4500fpm.
A6M2 Zero:
950hp/2800kg= 0.39 hp/kg
Bf109G10
1800hp/3300kg= 0.545 hp/kg
So, care to try to explain anyone how a plane with that powerratio can climb the same as the Bf109G10?.
Further comparison with an contemporary of the A6M2:
Bf109F4 (DB601E engine, 1350hp/sl)
1350hp/2900kg= 0,465hp/kg
Translated, almost 18% better power ratio than the zero. I would also ask you about how you are giving the Zero 4500fpm when it had a vastly lower power/weight ratio than the 109F4, yet you claim it outclimbed it by almost 600fpm.
I can do more comparisons with planes within that climb rate performance level. LAte spits, late russian fighters, late german fighters, most of them were in the 4500+ fpm turf. And they were all forced to have impressive powerlevels to do it. Most of those fighters sported engines with powers ranging from the 1800hp to the 2300hp.
The Zero had a 950hp engine. As I said, 2500-2700fpm was the best it could attain at sea level. Respectable, given the opposition it found. But no world-class beater by any means. Any spitfire would've eaten it for lunch (As they did later), and I won't enter in comparison with the best fighter of the time, the Fw190.
Thats a gross overstatement. Even the A6M5b wasn't able to pull more than 290mph at on the deck, and had 400hp more, and a better aerodynamic to boot. The A6M2 was good for some 270mph on the deck. Slower than a F4F, btw (the Zero was noticeably faster than the F4F at an altitude, though).
Even if you were right (That you are not), 300mph is barely impressing for late 1941. Roughly average for the time at the best. BF109F4s were clocking some 320mph@SL at the time, Fw190A1 was good for some 330mph@SL and spits V were able to run at around 310mph on the deck.
If we compare it with 1942 fighters (Fw190A4, Bf109G2, Spitfire Mk.IX, P47C), it's even worse.
Yep, that proves a fact, and it is that US fighters never were good at constant climb rate. They never were intended to anyway, and it never mattered; the american designs (particularily those that came online after 1942) emphasized what mattered in WW2 air combat: toughness, diving and zooming, firepower, top speed, high speed maneouverability, pilot visibility. Climbrate/acceleration was never in that list (they are good attributes for interceptors but once the fight is started, even a plane that accelerates like a truck but has good dive/zoom and high speed maneouverability, will destroy a lighter plane unable to dive/zoom properly, no matter what).
Also note, the tests vs the F4U1 were conducted with the early corsair, with the early hamilton standard prop. After the paddle props were issued, the Zero accelerated worse than the Corsair.
You also fail to mention that those reports also shed light over the fact that the Zero had progressively cemented controls over 250mph and was unmaneouverable at speeds over 350mph IAS, and that the plane had a very poor dive, and an ever poorer zoom. Wich was EXACTLY the reason why they were never able to do anything worth mention when faced against properly trained enemies flying (on-paper) inferior planes.
You don't mention either that the plane had an airframe so lightly built that a handful of 12.7mm rounds would pulverize it. But we all know that anyway so I guess that omission is OK.
Of course, because they were facing P40s, P39s, F4Fs, CW21 demons, Brewster Buffaloes, Fokker DXXIs, etc. I mean, they were flying against flying scrap bins. Not unnatural it outclimbed most of them.
And even then, it never mattered. Each time a force flying Zeros encountered an enemy force comprising properly trained pilots, they always failed to win air superiority. Even while those enemy forces flew such poor performers as the F4F, P39, P40 and other flying trash. Because that flying trash was still better than the zero at what mattered: Dive/zoom, toughness, firepower and high speed maneouverability.
of course, as soon as that flying trash was substituted for F6Fs, F4Us, P47s, P51s and P38s the whole IJA fighter forces were wiped out time after time. Unsurprising, to say the least.
The Zero was a very limited fighter at its best. It's a fact.
All the best
Faulty tactics enforced by Göring and a wrong switch of operational targets forced by Hitler killed the campaign, not the lack of quality of the german bomber force (which had models that weren't really the best for the task, but they sure gave an excellent account of themselfs nonetheless).
Yes, the German air force didn't have B-17s in 1940. Guess what, that didn't turn them into an ill-prepared force: they still were the only air force of the era able to conduct a quite succesful strategic bombing campaign on another nation, even though it had never been designed for that role when it was built.
We're talking about 1941-43 here (at least I am, after 1943 there's simply nothing to debate as the Zero was totally outclassed).
Zeros over NG were still using Vic formations on fighter sweeps over Port Moresby. in 1942.
A good number of Zeros over NG, Guadalcanal, and quite some embarked models lacked a radio set. in 1942.
IJN training schemes put extreme emphasis on aerobatics, and too little in teamwork. This still held true by 1945.
Those three points alone give the IJN air complements a very low rating teamwork-wise and tactically wise.
Every pilot who flew a zero was amazed by its low speed maneouverability. I guess that had Boone Guyton flown a WW1 Dr-1 triplane he'd been amazed by it's under-80mph turn rate and maneouverability.
But, would've that turned the DR-1 into a worthy fighter for WW2?. No. And his comments on the low speed maneouverability of the zero don't qualify the model as a succesful fighter any more than that.
Low speed maneouverability accounted for nothing during WW2 air fights. Otherwise jets woud've never been the next step, and Biplanes would've been the best fighters around. Yet Speed, hi-speed maneouverability, dive, zoom, toughness, firepower and visibility were the vital performance stats of top-class fighters of WW2. That was why the CR-42 fell in droves against hurricanes. That was why the Gladiator was retired from service. That was why by the end of the war high speed planes as the Gloster Meteor, Me262, P80, etc, heralded the new era of the jet fighters. None of those planes could turn with a propeller driven aircraft under 250mph IAS. But they were the future because they were better in what mattered. Turning ability at low speeds meant nothing.
The Zero failed in most of those departments. It excelled at low speed turnings. In short: the Zero wasn't a top-class WW2 fighter for his era (I insist, Fw190, Bf109F, Spitfire MkV-IX. Those were the top dogs. The zero was a sub-par figher that did great at the DEI because they fought elderly machines flown by hopelessy unexperienced pilots).
Pure hyperbole, that's a myth. The A6M2 did at it's best some 2700fpm at sea level, and steadily fell as altitude increased. By that time the Spitfire Mkv was able to (barely) hit 3500fpm at sea level, the german 109F4 was hitting 3900, and the Fw190A1 was good for around 3700fpm. All of them had better powerloading than the japanese fighter.
The whole 4500fpm myth is that, a myth. It comes from a wrong transcription of documents coming from some time back. There's no phisical way a 2800kg machine with a 950hp engine can climb that fast. The power delivered is not up to the task to achieve it, and that without taking propeller eficiency into the equation.
As a comparison, 4500fpm is a bit under what a Bf109G10 was able to achieve in 1944. The 109G10 was a roughly 3400kg plane with a 1800hp engine (DB605ASM with Mw50 injection and B4 fuel). Do the powerloading, or power to weight (As you wish to call it) math to see how impossible are the claims about the Zero making 4500fpm.
A6M2 Zero:
950hp/2800kg= 0.39 hp/kg
Bf109G10
1800hp/3300kg= 0.545 hp/kg
So, care to try to explain anyone how a plane with that powerratio can climb the same as the Bf109G10?.
Further comparison with an contemporary of the A6M2:
Bf109F4 (DB601E engine, 1350hp/sl)
1350hp/2900kg= 0,465hp/kg
Translated, almost 18% better power ratio than the zero. I would also ask you about how you are giving the Zero 4500fpm when it had a vastly lower power/weight ratio than the 109F4, yet you claim it outclimbed it by almost 600fpm.
I can do more comparisons with planes within that climb rate performance level. LAte spits, late russian fighters, late german fighters, most of them were in the 4500+ fpm turf. And they were all forced to have impressive powerlevels to do it. Most of those fighters sported engines with powers ranging from the 1800hp to the 2300hp.
The Zero had a 950hp engine. As I said, 2500-2700fpm was the best it could attain at sea level. Respectable, given the opposition it found. But no world-class beater by any means. Any spitfire would've eaten it for lunch (As they did later), and I won't enter in comparison with the best fighter of the time, the Fw190.
Thats a gross overstatement. Even the A6M5b wasn't able to pull more than 290mph at on the deck, and had 400hp more, and a better aerodynamic to boot. The A6M2 was good for some 270mph on the deck. Slower than a F4F, btw (the Zero was noticeably faster than the F4F at an altitude, though).
Even if you were right (That you are not), 300mph is barely impressing for late 1941. Roughly average for the time at the best. BF109F4s were clocking some 320mph@SL at the time, Fw190A1 was good for some 330mph@SL and spits V were able to run at around 310mph on the deck.
If we compare it with 1942 fighters (Fw190A4, Bf109G2, Spitfire Mk.IX, P47C), it's even worse.
Yep, that proves a fact, and it is that US fighters never were good at constant climb rate. They never were intended to anyway, and it never mattered; the american designs (particularily those that came online after 1942) emphasized what mattered in WW2 air combat: toughness, diving and zooming, firepower, top speed, high speed maneouverability, pilot visibility. Climbrate/acceleration was never in that list (they are good attributes for interceptors but once the fight is started, even a plane that accelerates like a truck but has good dive/zoom and high speed maneouverability, will destroy a lighter plane unable to dive/zoom properly, no matter what).
Also note, the tests vs the F4U1 were conducted with the early corsair, with the early hamilton standard prop. After the paddle props were issued, the Zero accelerated worse than the Corsair.
You also fail to mention that those reports also shed light over the fact that the Zero had progressively cemented controls over 250mph and was unmaneouverable at speeds over 350mph IAS, and that the plane had a very poor dive, and an ever poorer zoom. Wich was EXACTLY the reason why they were never able to do anything worth mention when faced against properly trained enemies flying (on-paper) inferior planes.
You don't mention either that the plane had an airframe so lightly built that a handful of 12.7mm rounds would pulverize it. But we all know that anyway so I guess that omission is OK.
Of course, because they were facing P40s, P39s, F4Fs, CW21 demons, Brewster Buffaloes, Fokker DXXIs, etc. I mean, they were flying against flying scrap bins. Not unnatural it outclimbed most of them.
And even then, it never mattered. Each time a force flying Zeros encountered an enemy force comprising properly trained pilots, they always failed to win air superiority. Even while those enemy forces flew such poor performers as the F4F, P39, P40 and other flying trash. Because that flying trash was still better than the zero at what mattered: Dive/zoom, toughness, firepower and high speed maneouverability.
of course, as soon as that flying trash was substituted for F6Fs, F4Us, P47s, P51s and P38s the whole IJA fighter forces were wiped out time after time. Unsurprising, to say the least.
The Zero was a very limited fighter at its best. It's a fact.
All the best
Last edited:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf
Performance analysis of the A6M2 captured on the aleutians proving the facts stated avobe:
Vmax at sea level: 277mph
Vmax: 335mph@16000feet
Climbrate at sea level: 2710fpm (maximum of the model)
Climbrate at 15000feet: 2460fpm
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
Performance analysis of an A6M5b (the best performing Zeke of the whole series which entered service with Japan).
-F4U1D (paddle prop) climbed as well as the Model 52 (A6M5b) up to 10000 feet, better avobe that.
-the FM2 (A MODIFIED WILDCAT!) climbed BETTER than the A6M5b up to 19000 feet.
-The model 52 still had very high control forces over 200mph IAS (the model was MUCH improved in that regard vs the A6M2) wich prevented it from being a threat to planes flying fast
-Literally what's said in that report is that over 200mph the F4U, F6F,FM2 (up-motorized F4F) had the maneouverability advantage over the Zero. So the zero wasn't that good maneouvering after all (and I insist, the model 52 was MUCH better than the A6M2 in that regard).
-The Zero still couldnt' dive well (and the model 52 also was much better than the A6M2)
-The only chance for a Zero to win a fight vs any of the avobe mentioned models was to drag the fight under speeds of 175Mph IAS. Which was easily avoided by the attacked: simply doing a sharp diving turn would shake the Zero off his tail because he wouldn't be able to follow. A following zoom back would also put his plane on equal or superior terms against the japanese fighter.
Corollary of all that, the A6M5b, the best Zero ever, was hopeless against even a refurbished wildcat. Not strange they got wiped out of the sky.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/p5016.pdf
Comparison tests of a captured A6M2 vs P40k and P43 Lancer.
-A6M2 climbs better than the P40 over 10000 feet, but under 5000 feet the P40K climbs faster (or at least is suspected to, as report says)
-Acceleration wise the Zero was inferior to the P40K. (10000 feet)
-In mock-up fights if the P40K stayed fast the A6M2 stood no chance to harm it, even if the P40K didn't dive.
-It's highlighted again the poor controlability of the Zeros at moderate to high IAS. At 200mph the controls start getting harder to move. At 300mph IAS even putting the plane into a gentle turn requires an inordinate ammount of pilot strenght and was impossible to roll.
-I'ts also highlighted that at 275mph or avove IAS, the P40K had the clear upper hand maneouverability wise.
-The plane simply wasn't able to keep up with a P40K in a sharp dive, and would've been soon left behind even in a shallow one. Japanese pilots actually never tried to follow in either of those (as is also remarked on the report).
Corollary: the P40K was a much effective fighter than the A6M2.
Anyone wishes, around here, to call the P40 a war winner?. Because I certainly won't ever do it. The Warhawk was obsolete even by 1942 standards (as the 109s made it clear over the Lybian and Egiptian deserts), yet the A6M2 was clearly inferior to it.
The Zero was a dog. Case closed.
Performance analysis of the A6M2 captured on the aleutians proving the facts stated avobe:
Vmax at sea level: 277mph
Vmax: 335mph@16000feet
Climbrate at sea level: 2710fpm (maximum of the model)
Climbrate at 15000feet: 2460fpm
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
Performance analysis of an A6M5b (the best performing Zeke of the whole series which entered service with Japan).
-F4U1D (paddle prop) climbed as well as the Model 52 (A6M5b) up to 10000 feet, better avobe that.
-the FM2 (A MODIFIED WILDCAT!) climbed BETTER than the A6M5b up to 19000 feet.
-The model 52 still had very high control forces over 200mph IAS (the model was MUCH improved in that regard vs the A6M2) wich prevented it from being a threat to planes flying fast
-Literally what's said in that report is that over 200mph the F4U, F6F,FM2 (up-motorized F4F) had the maneouverability advantage over the Zero. So the zero wasn't that good maneouvering after all (and I insist, the model 52 was MUCH better than the A6M2 in that regard).
-The Zero still couldnt' dive well (and the model 52 also was much better than the A6M2)
-The only chance for a Zero to win a fight vs any of the avobe mentioned models was to drag the fight under speeds of 175Mph IAS. Which was easily avoided by the attacked: simply doing a sharp diving turn would shake the Zero off his tail because he wouldn't be able to follow. A following zoom back would also put his plane on equal or superior terms against the japanese fighter.
Corollary of all that, the A6M5b, the best Zero ever, was hopeless against even a refurbished wildcat. Not strange they got wiped out of the sky.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/p5016.pdf
Comparison tests of a captured A6M2 vs P40k and P43 Lancer.
-A6M2 climbs better than the P40 over 10000 feet, but under 5000 feet the P40K climbs faster (or at least is suspected to, as report says)
-Acceleration wise the Zero was inferior to the P40K. (10000 feet)
-In mock-up fights if the P40K stayed fast the A6M2 stood no chance to harm it, even if the P40K didn't dive.
-It's highlighted again the poor controlability of the Zeros at moderate to high IAS. At 200mph the controls start getting harder to move. At 300mph IAS even putting the plane into a gentle turn requires an inordinate ammount of pilot strenght and was impossible to roll.
-I'ts also highlighted that at 275mph or avove IAS, the P40K had the clear upper hand maneouverability wise.
-The plane simply wasn't able to keep up with a P40K in a sharp dive, and would've been soon left behind even in a shallow one. Japanese pilots actually never tried to follow in either of those (as is also remarked on the report).
Corollary: the P40K was a much effective fighter than the A6M2.
Anyone wishes, around here, to call the P40 a war winner?. Because I certainly won't ever do it. The Warhawk was obsolete even by 1942 standards (as the 109s made it clear over the Lybian and Egiptian deserts), yet the A6M2 was clearly inferior to it.
The Zero was a dog. Case closed.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Some interesting point in your discussion RAM but consider this...
At the start of the war and even into its early months, pilots (at least in the US) were being taught to engage in combat maneuvers at speeds under 300 mph. Not only was this an out dated training doctrine but it related to the aircraft maneuvering speeds and structural limitations. It also played into the hand of such aircraft like the Zero and Oscar and I think te results of some early air battles speak for themselves. I don't have the data in front of me right now but I believe there were charts in either the P-38 or P-40 flight manual that showed some pretty low speeds with regards to entering and performing aerobatic maneuvers and tight turns. Of course we know later in the war this changed and "boom and zoom" was the tactic of the day, I think you'll find that many twisting and turning dogfights that did happen occurred at speeds well under Vne for the given aircraft, at least at the beginning of the war.
Last edited:
That's something I can't buy, FlyboyJ. The Marines and USN pilots had all appropiate training regarding teamwork and high speed tactics. True enough, they also had their good share of training on "old school" combat, but european reports coming from the other side of the Atlantic since 1939 were telling a clear story: close range, slow speed, turn based fighting was now totally outdated. Chennault only subscribed to it in China, and the whole of the air designers of the time aknowledged it. Which means, the air forces had also done it (and if the air force knew it, the pilots too because the AF sets the training courses ).
The american designers took a good note of what was going on in Europe at the time. The Hellcat, F4U, P47 and P38 designs all date from dates well prior to the enter of USA into the war (the stories about the F6F being designed on basis of what was found out of the aleutian A6M2 are pure myths). If the designers knew that their new fighters had to be powerful, speedy, good in high speed and energy fighting, and that low speed maneouverability was a non-factor by then, it's only normal to think that the pilots and the US air forces of the time (USAAC, US Navy and USMC air corps) were well aware of it aswell.
It's unsurprising, remember that some american models were flying in Europe at the time. The americans were specially interested in knowing how the P-36 fared in combat in order to know what to do to improve it. Reports came telling a tale about an enemy using superior tactics and relying on high speed, suprise passes, hit and run tactics, and not entering close combats unless as a desperate last resort. American engineers took good note of that and accordingly, designed fast, heavy, powerful planes that coudln't turn exactly on a dime, but noone cared about that.
What you say about training, however, applies very well to other nations. And thats why I say that the Zero excelled in the only place of the planet it could excel at the time: DEI, Indonesia and Burma. Against the array of outdated and obsolete models present there, it already had a headstart, but when we also take in account pilot training...well, the Japanese didn't put any emphasis on team work training at all, but their adversaries were simply untrained or very poorly so. The dutch pilots were trained in the "old school" of "turning and burning" and as such were easy prey. The british knew better, but their fighter pilots at the spot at the time weren't properly trained and actually were among the lowest quality fighter pilots of the Empire at the time (no disrespect intended to them at all, but the good ones understabily were fighting over the Channel and the DEsert at the time) and weren't properly commanded either.
The USAAF present at the Phillipines was a non-factor after Clark was wiped out of the earth by japanese early bombings, but their pilots weren't top-notch either and they still were flying by the "old" tactics anyway.
The only and one group of fighters/pilots the Japanese couldn't get the upper hand on, was against the AVG. Those were top-class pilots in an obsolete plane, the P40B. But a plane that still was better than the Zero for what mattered: high speed fighting. All those pilots had to do was to keep their fights fast. And so they did. And so we can see today their kill/loss ratio: absolutely outstanding. And soon what was already known back at the States reached every frontline squadron: NEVER turn with a japanese fighter. Stay fast, dive away if attacked, slash/zoom when attacking.
And the Zero happy days were over. Forever.
Against an enemy who kept their planes fast (and if those planes were good in the role of fighting fast, of course), the japanese fighters ,notably the Oscars of the Army, but here clearly I am including the Zero aswell, were simply hopeless. Against an enemy who just tried to close the fight into a slow speed conquest they ran over the opposition, the A6M/Ki43 were simply too good in slow speed stallfights. So, the Zeros excelled in the only and one place of the whole planet where a combination of old school tactics/poor pilot training/park of garbage planes was present at that time: DEI.
Had the Japanese been in France at the time and launched a Zero sortie over the British Islands they'd been merrily chewed away by the RAF.
In any case it took the allies soon enough to understand what not to do against a Zero. The USN F4Fs were doing it by the time of Coral Sea, and only 6 months had passed since the war had started. A plane that trusts its succesfullness in the faith of an stupid enemy who doesn't learn a harsh lesson after six months is hopeless. As soon as even the most novice pilot in the Allied forces was taught "not to turn with a Zero", the plane was hopelessy obsolete. And that did happen pretty soon.
).The american designers took a good note of what was going on in Europe at the time. The Hellcat, F4U, P47 and P38 designs all date from dates well prior to the enter of USA into the war (the stories about the F6F being designed on basis of what was found out of the aleutian A6M2 are pure myths). If the designers knew that their new fighters had to be powerful, speedy, good in high speed and energy fighting, and that low speed maneouverability was a non-factor by then, it's only normal to think that the pilots and the US air forces of the time (USAAC, US Navy and USMC air corps) were well aware of it aswell.
It's unsurprising, remember that some american models were flying in Europe at the time. The americans were specially interested in knowing how the P-36 fared in combat in order to know what to do to improve it. Reports came telling a tale about an enemy using superior tactics and relying on high speed, suprise passes, hit and run tactics, and not entering close combats unless as a desperate last resort. American engineers took good note of that and accordingly, designed fast, heavy, powerful planes that coudln't turn exactly on a dime, but noone cared about that.
What you say about training, however, applies very well to other nations. And thats why I say that the Zero excelled in the only place of the planet it could excel at the time: DEI, Indonesia and Burma. Against the array of outdated and obsolete models present there, it already had a headstart, but when we also take in account pilot training...well, the Japanese didn't put any emphasis on team work training at all, but their adversaries were simply untrained or very poorly so. The dutch pilots were trained in the "old school" of "turning and burning" and as such were easy prey. The british knew better, but their fighter pilots at the spot at the time weren't properly trained and actually were among the lowest quality fighter pilots of the Empire at the time (no disrespect intended to them at all, but the good ones understabily were fighting over the Channel and the DEsert at the time) and weren't properly commanded either.
The USAAF present at the Phillipines was a non-factor after Clark was wiped out of the earth by japanese early bombings, but their pilots weren't top-notch either and they still were flying by the "old" tactics anyway.
The only and one group of fighters/pilots the Japanese couldn't get the upper hand on, was against the AVG. Those were top-class pilots in an obsolete plane, the P40B. But a plane that still was better than the Zero for what mattered: high speed fighting. All those pilots had to do was to keep their fights fast. And so they did. And so we can see today their kill/loss ratio: absolutely outstanding. And soon what was already known back at the States reached every frontline squadron: NEVER turn with a japanese fighter. Stay fast, dive away if attacked, slash/zoom when attacking.
And the Zero happy days were over. Forever.
Against an enemy who kept their planes fast (and if those planes were good in the role of fighting fast, of course), the japanese fighters ,notably the Oscars of the Army, but here clearly I am including the Zero aswell, were simply hopeless. Against an enemy who just tried to close the fight into a slow speed conquest they ran over the opposition, the A6M/Ki43 were simply too good in slow speed stallfights. So, the Zeros excelled in the only and one place of the whole planet where a combination of old school tactics/poor pilot training/park of garbage planes was present at that time: DEI.
Had the Japanese been in France at the time and launched a Zero sortie over the British Islands they'd been merrily chewed away by the RAF.
In any case it took the allies soon enough to understand what not to do against a Zero. The USN F4Fs were doing it by the time of Coral Sea, and only 6 months had passed since the war had started. A plane that trusts its succesfullness in the faith of an stupid enemy who doesn't learn a harsh lesson after six months is hopeless. As soon as even the most novice pilot in the Allied forces was taught "not to turn with a Zero", the plane was hopelessy obsolete. And that did happen pretty soon.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's something I can't buy, FlyboyJ. The Marines and USN pilots had all appropiate training regarding teamwork and high speed tactics. True enough, they also had their good share of training on "old school" combat, but european reports coming from the other side of the Atlantic since 1939 were telling a clear story: close range, slow speed, turn based fighting was now totally outdated. Chennault only subscribed to it in China, and the whole of the air designers of the time aknowledged it. Which means, the air forces had also done it (and if the air force knew it, the pilots too because the AF sets the training courses
The american designers took a good note of what was going on in Europe at the time. The Hellcat, F4U, P47 and P38 designs all date from dates well prior to the enter of USA into the war (the stories about the F6F being designed on basis of what was found out of the aleutian A6M2 are pure myths). If the designers knew that their new fighters had to be powerful, speedy, good in high speed and energy fighting, and that low speed maneouverability was a non-factor by then, it's only normal to think that the pilots and the US air forces of the time (USAAC, US Navy and USMC air corps) were well aware of it aswell.
It's unsurprising, remember that some american models were flying in Europe at the time. The americans were specially interested in knowing how the P-36 fared in combat in order to know what to do to improve it. Reports came telling a tale about an enemy using superior tactics and relying on high speed, suprise passes, hit and run tactics, and not entering close combats unless as a desperate last resort. American engineers took good note of that and accordingly, designed fast, heavy, powerful planes that coudln't turn exactly on a dime, but noone cared about that.
What you say about training, however, applies very well to other nations. And thats why I say that the Zero excelled in the only place of the planet it could excel at the time: DEI, Indonesia and Burma. Against the array of outdated and obsolete models present there, it already had a headstart, but when we also take in account pilot training...well, the Japanese didn't put any emphasis on team work training at all, but their adversaries were simply untrained or very poorly so. The dutch pilots were trained in the "old school" of "turning and burning" and as such were easy prey. The british knew better, but their fighter pilots at the spot at the time weren't properly trained and actually were among the lowest quality fighter pilots of the Empire at the time (no disrespect intended to them at all, but the good ones understabily were fighting over the Channel and the DEsert at the time) and weren't properly commanded either.
The USAAF present at the Phillipines was a non-factor after Clark was wiped out of the earth by japanese early bombings, but their pilots weren't top-notch either and they still were flying by the "old" tactics anyway.
The only and one group of fighters/pilots the Japanese couldn't get the upper hand on, was against the AVG. Those were top-class pilots in an obsolete plane, the P40B. But a plane that still was better than the Zero for what mattered: high speed fighting. All those pilots had to do was to keep their fights fast. And so they did. And so we can see today their kill/loss ratio: absolutely outstanding. And soon what was already known back at the States reached every frontline squadron: NEVER turn with a japanese fighter. Stay fast, dive away if attacked, slash/zoom when attacking.
And the Zero happy days were over. Forever.
Against an enemy who kept their planes fast (and if those planes were good in the role of fighting fast, of course), the japanese fighters ,notably the Oscars of the Army, but here clearly I am including the Zero aswell, were simply hopeless. Against an enemy who just tried to close the fight into a slow speed conquest they ran over the opposition, the A6M/Ki43 were simply too good in slow speed stallfights. So, the Zeros excelled in the only and one place of the whole planet where a combination of old school tactics/poor pilot training/park of garbage planes was present at that time: DEI.
Had the Japanese been in France at the time and launched a Zero sortie over the British Islands they'd been merrily chewed away by the RAF.
In any case it took the allies soon enough to understand what not to do against a Zero. The USN F4Fs were doing it by the time of Coral Sea, and only 6 months had passed since the war had started. A plane that trusts its succesfullness in the faith of an stupid enemy who doesn't learn a harsh lesson after six months is hopeless. As soon as even the most novice pilot in the Allied forces was taught "not to turn with a Zero", the plane was hopelessy obsolete. And that did happen pretty soon.
Have you looked at any flight manuals with regards to maneuvering speeds and exceeding structural limits? You don't do 4G tuns at 400 mph, at least in many aircraft you're not supposed to unless you want to bend the airframe or worse. Additionally, when you speak of Marine pilots receiveing "high speed training," do you have any indication of what "high speed" was?
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Maybe hyperbole and maybe Eric Brown is full of it but he does not seem to share the opinion of RAM who seems very positive about his views, but from Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" " Assessment: The Zeke was possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941, and it was excellently suited to the demanding aircraft carrier environment, a combination that qualifies it as one of the greatest naval fighters of all time. The aircraft's obvious weakness was an inability to absorb punishment from heavy caliber guns, but it did not expect to reckon with many of these." Not bad for a "dog." I do not recall the F4U ever being fitted with paddle blade props and Guyton does not mention it in his book and I don't believe it is mentioned in "America's Hundred Thousand."
WEll, structural limits varied from plane to plane. Sustained 4Gs won't be a problem for a Fw190, for instance (sturdily built, one-piece integral structure wing, etc), but will rip apart a Ki43 oscar in no time. So, well, that varies from instance to instance.
AS for high speed maneouverability, I guess I have to explain myself better here (Language barrier sucks, honestly). I'm not speaking of a 400mph+ small circles here. For maneouverability I mean "controllability". Light controls that ease the pilot's task in asking his plane doing something. Harmonized controls. Sturdy structures that allow for high speed changes of direction without compromising the plane's integrity. Fast-response to pilot inputs. Etc.
So, for instance, when I say that a P51D had an absolute upper hand maneouverability wise at high speeds over a Zero I mean that:
-the P51 had a much better rollrate than the Zero (well, the Zero was un-rollable over 350 IAS, so that's not a real comparison
).-the P51 had much lighter controls allowing the pilot to stay fast and manoeuver at those speeds without tiring him phisically
-the P51 had well harmonized controls that gave him prompt responses to his inputs.
-The P51 was able to retain that high speeds for a long time (Thanks to exceptional aerodynamics and plane weight).
-etc.
When I speak of high speed maneouverability, I'm talking about the above mentioned things, not saying that a P51D at 400mph IAS if faced with a zero would do a 12G turn into the Zero's tail
.As for the high speed training of the USN pilots, well, any "high speed" maneouver is basically conducted over the plane's corner speed. In other words: it belongs to those speeds where plane acceleration is less important than intertia/aerodynamics.
By staying at those speed brackets you rely on dive/Zoom properties of planes (Related to weight/aerodynamic considerations) rather than in powerloading. Given that US planes usually were heavy, had good aerodynamics (with some exceptions, of course) but had a marginal or worse climb rate/Acceleration, it was only natural that tactics teached to their pilots tended to focus on those "high" speeds. In general, US airmen also were given a fair bit of hints about energy management during air combat, etc.
all the best.
theultimateend
Recruit
- 8
- May 10, 2010
I'm going out on a limb here but I feel the worst aircraft in WWII had a 100% mortality rate for the pilots who flew it.
The Ohka:
Was it an effective delivery device? Probably! But something about killing every person that flies in it makes it seem like the worst plane in WWII.
I'm sure no other plane (that didn't serve the same purpose I guess) had a better rate of survival.
Or how are we defining best/worst? Since this is up to 112 pages :/
GM Rico
The Ohka:
Was it an effective delivery device? Probably! But something about killing every person that flies in it makes it seem like the worst plane in WWII.
I'm sure no other plane (that didn't serve the same purpose I guess) had a better rate of survival
.Or how are we defining best/worst? Since this is up to 112 pages :/
GM Rico
Certainly I'm open to debate. Where debate is possible. Performance numbers debate is NOT possible. The numbers for the Zeke performance are posted avobe and can't be discussed (they come from official sources of the era).
Now ,if you choose to think that a slow plane (for the era), low climbrate/Acceleration (For the era), with bad dive/zoom, not that good firepower (Zeke pilots said their 20mms were good for nothing and that their preferred weapons were the twin 7.7mms on the cowl), very low ability to take punishment, unable to fight over 250mph IAS, etc, was better (or on the same league) as a plane like the Fw190 which was
50mph faster (much more if we compare later models)
exceptional dive/zoomer
Exceptionally hard hitter
exceptional at high speeds
able to stand severe punishment
Better performer in EVERY single department of performance one can measure except on low speed maneouverability
etc
then it's your call, not mine. You're entitled to your opinion if you want to say that the Zeke was the best fighter of the era, even while the comparison against the top dog of the era shows otherwise, you're free to think as you wish.
I don't disagree with the second. The Zeke was well designed for embarked operations. So was the Fairey Fulmar. Does that turn the Fulmar into a war winner?.
Anyway: In december '41 embarked fighters of the era were
-Brewster F2B2 (absolute dog)
-Wildcat F4F (under par fighter, yet proved to be the equal of the Zero over the Pacific)
-Fairey Fulmar (I'd rather not enter into valorations here, shall I?
)-Hawker Sea Hurricane (I'd rather it as better, but here at least its debatable).
-Sea Gladiator (biplane, need I say more?)
The Zeke certainly was the best or second best of them all, and as I said comparisons with the Sea Hurricane and F4F have at least some ground to base on.
HOwever, the Sea Hurricane was an already obsolete fighter for the day. The F4F wasn't up to par with the best fighters of the era. And Certainly the A6M2, if on level or slightly better than this two, couldn't compete with the best of the era either.
As for the first part I think Brown's talking about the experience of flying it. Certainly the Zeke was a joy to fly. And certainly it had the performance numbers to give the opposition a rough time. But that opposition when properly flown gave the Zero fits. I don't base myself on the (Subjective) opinions of an excellent pilot when flying it in a test environment, not combat.
I base myself on the objective facts that war gives us.
Those objective facts say the following:
-the Zeke wasn't able to estabish any kind of lasting air superiority over enemy fighters with worse performances on paper, between 1941 and 1943, as long as said fighters relied on high speed tactics. This fact is undebatable because, well, the Zero didn't achieve it.
-Said fighters comprise (among others) the following models:
-P40B
-P40E
-F4F3
-F4F4
-P39D
-P400
-Said models were all obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate at the time. At its best. This fact is undebatable because those models had very average or sub-par performances for the time being, and because some of them actually were kicked out of the sky in other theaters (as happened with the Kittyhawk/Tomakawk).
Those are the facts ,and here's my opinion based on those facts:
-A fighter that consistently fails to provide a decisive air superiority when the opposition is flying those obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate models, can't be a world winner BY DEFINITION. Even more when in the other hemysphere of the planet there are air battles waged where much better performing fighters are flying day after day.
you post here an opinion of a test pilot.
I gave you avobe two different set of official test trials regarding the Zeke maneouverability.
IF you think a plane that's unable to properly maneouver over 250mph IAS is not an "obvious weakness", you're free to do so. I'm seriously surprised Mr. Brown didn't mention it elsewhere. Should really buy that book, has been in my list for ages.
I have Eric Brown's opinions in a high esteem generally speaking, but certainly I heartfeltly disagree with his opinions on this one.Thats what happens with pilots quotes, they are always subjective.
However, I gave some real grounds where I base my opinions on, in this debate. I provided some objective data. So far you have brought only a subjective opinion (of an expert, but subjective nonetheless). I've given performance figures, official tests, historical facts, etc.
And those performance figures and tests point out that the Zeke was a dog. And I insist: a dog it was.
Then I have to tell you that you need to check your sources better: the Corsair was fitted with one. The initial three bladed props weren't the ones that the model carried in the F4U-1A and D versions. And certainly they were not the four bladed paddle prop the F4U4 had.
Last edited:
I'm going out on a limb here but I feel the worst aircraft in WWII had a 100% mortality rate for the pilots who flew it.
The Ohka:
Was it an effective delivery device? Probably! But something about killing every person that flies in it makes it seem like the worst plane in WWII.
I'm sure no other plane (that didn't serve the same purpose I guess) had a better rate of survival
Or how are we defining best/worst? Since this is up to 112 pages :/
GM Rico
That one is pretty good. 100% mortality rate, nobody ever walked away.
That should do it.
all this test were with wrongs power settings of engine and the last probably with engine heavy troubled.
on the opinion on Type 0 i think it was a good fighter, if you comparate it with they adversaries, before of the event of new generation fighters (corsair, thunderbolt ...)
for comparation Hurricane vs Type 0 if i remember right actually type 0 wins
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It actually depends on speed and I also believe that within its maneuvering speed envelope an Oscar was able to sustain 4Gs.
And in 1940 - 41, you're looking at speeds between 250 - 300 mph in F2As and F3Fs - the speeds where the Zero and Oscar were in their element.
Actually, energy management maneuvers were emphasized after the war started in training circles. As we know the AVG made use of boom and zoom, later the use of energy to fight in the "yo-yo" or even vertical was developed. When the US first entered the war there was a strong emphasis on fighting in the horizontal, but that eventually changed. Because of that and the use of some inferior fighters, the US struggled the first few months of the war.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
