PDA

View Full Version : Zero better than Hellcat?



sugaki
05-03-2004, 11:59 AM
Did anybody see that Pacific War thing on the History channel (you mean they did something else than Nazis?)

I coulda swore it said that the F6F Hellcat was outclassed by the Zero, then segueing into saying that the F4U gave the US the air superiority it needed.

Anybody else pick this up? Or did I just hear it wrong? F6F I felt was more influential in tearing down the Zero's early-war supremacy, so it was baffling that a show would say something like that.

Please don't turn this into a F4U vs. F6F thread, or Zero vs. F6F thread either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just wondering if I heard the show right.

sugaki
05-03-2004, 11:59 AM
Did anybody see that Pacific War thing on the History channel (you mean they did something else than Nazis?)

I coulda swore it said that the F6F Hellcat was outclassed by the Zero, then segueing into saying that the F4U gave the US the air superiority it needed.

Anybody else pick this up? Or did I just hear it wrong? F6F I felt was more influential in tearing down the Zero's early-war supremacy, so it was baffling that a show would say something like that.

Please don't turn this into a F4U vs. F6F thread, or Zero vs. F6F thread either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just wondering if I heard the show right.

k5054
05-03-2004, 01:15 PM
This is obviously a mistake by the History channel. Not their first!
If you go to the Naval history site recommended by Skychimp. www.history.navy.mil, (http://www.history.navy.mil,) you can find the Naval Aviation Combat statistics, a 3.7 mb download. Can't tell you the exact location as I can't get into it right now, but that file is full of tables telling the statistical story of WW2 for USN and USMC aviation. Look up table 28, it has the type-by-type kills and losses for the last year of the war, with opposing japanese types also recorded. it shows F6F beating Zeke by 16 to 1. Better than F4U by a fraction. F6F vs late Japanese fighters about 5 to 1. check out US fighters vs Japanese bombers and patrol a/c, about 100 to 1, USN PB4Y (lib and privateer) vs fighters, 5-1, and bombers, 179 kills, no losses. Of course these are claims vs admitted losses, and obviously need to be toned down a little, but these stats are amazing. Will PF give us a 100-1 chance of surviving an attack on a bomber if we fly a F6F, but 1-5 if we fly a A6M? There's a choice here between game balance and historical accuracy.
Anyone interested in accuracy should find that file, nasc.pdf, and download it to read at leisure, the thing I quoted are just a fraction of what is there. I guarantee you'll be amazed.

Giganoni
05-03-2004, 02:42 PM
You also got to realize I think the US (as Japan did) considered a loss as a Pilot killed, not plane destroyed. But a kill was plane destroyed. So of course there is going to be some disparity.

Latico
05-03-2004, 04:17 PM
From all I've read about the planes in the Pacific War, the US never had a plane that could maneuver with the Zekes. What they lacked in that area they made up for in others. More armor and selfsealing tanks were a big difference. Most of the US fighters were more stable in a high speed dive where as the Zeke got somewhat squirrely. The B&Z from above tactic was the more effective means of engagement against the Japanese fighters.

I'd say that it wasn't the planes that gained air superiority, but rather the pilots that flew them. They understood their planes weaknesses and utilized the strengths of them.

k5054
05-03-2004, 04:21 PM
The document has a section describing the terms used. A loss is a lost aircraft, but there is a little wiggle room for movement between types of loss, a/a, a/c or operational. I would prorate the operational losses between aa and ac, and if so it wouldn't make much difference to the kill ratios. If only we had the equivalent figure for the IJN and IJAAF. ( A site www.usaaf.net (http://www.usaaf.net) has the statistical summary for all USAAF action in WW2, but it hasn't the detail of the navy one, it doesn't go down to a/c types.) I don't know where you get the idea that a loss is a lost pilot, any documentation for that?

BlitzPig_DDT
05-03-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
From all I've read about the planes in the Pacific War, the US never had a plane that could maneuver with the Zekes. What they lacked in that area they made up for in others. More armor and selfsealing tanks were a big difference. Most of the US fighters were more stable in a high speed dive where as the Zeke got somewhat squirrely. The B&Z from above tactic was the more effective means of engagement against the Japanese fighters.

I'd say that it wasn't the planes that gained air superiority, but rather the pilots that flew them. They understood their planes weaknesses and utilized the strengths of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As stated countless times - the zero could not compete at higher speeds. This, combined with team tactics, is how all US planes, including the P-40 and F4F were beating the Zeros.

Since they were all using the same means (essentially), there should be no difference from one plane to another in the eyes of the Japanese pilots.

Yet, in spite of this, the Japanese aces gave respect to the F6F Hellcat. Not the P-40 or F4F that came before it, and not even the F4U that came after it.

Over 220mph the Hellcat was the better handling plane. 220mph is slow and well within the speed limits of each plane.

The Hellcat also had better wing loading than the La7. (chew on that for a while. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

k5054
05-03-2004, 04:24 PM
"I'd say that it wasn't the planes that gained air superiority, but rather the pilots that flew them. They understood their planes weaknesses and utilized the strengths of them."

IMHO when you're talking one on one, it's the pilot. When you're talking air superiority, that's force on force, it's the plane, and the side with the faster plane (nearly) always wins.

k5054
05-03-2004, 04:27 PM
Yet, in spite of this, the Japanese aces gave respect to the F6F Hellcat. Not the P-40 or F4F that came before it, and not even the F4U that came after it.


The F4U came before the F6F, F4U combat debut feb 43, F6F august 43.
The FM-2 wildcat had the best kill-loss ratio, 32 to 1, respect or not.

sugaki
05-03-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Hellcat also had better wing loading than the La7. (chew on that for a while. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a shocker, considering how well the La7 maneuvers in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P40s and F4Fs beating down Zeroes? Let's not let the thread go down that path--there are plenty of other threads to argue that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-03-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
P40s and F4Fs beating down Zeroes? Let's not let the thread go down that path--there are plenty of other threads to argue that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if they didn't, the AVG would've been anhilated rather quickly and the USN would've been wiped out early on.

Neither of those occured. Clearly, the F4F and P-40 were beating the Japanese. Even if some anti-US and/or pro-IJN/AAF don't like to acknowledge it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Hellcat also had better wing loading than the La7. (chew on that for a while. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a shocker, considering how well the La7 maneuvers in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was shocked when I first realized it too.

However, I suspect it would all come out in the wash in terms of a power off turn as the difference is not extreme, and the F6F has the better wing loading with the La7 having well designed low lift devices. (talking about a .34 lbs per sq. ft difference. lol)

Overall, the La7 would probably have the advantage because it seems a bit more aerodynamic and I think it had better power loading, but, my #s aren't available at the moment.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Rudee37
05-03-2004, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
From all I've read about the planes in the Pacific War, the US never had a plane that could maneuver with the Zekes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't have to maneuver with the Zero's. They relied on aircraft with superior diving speeds and pounced on the Zero's from higher altitudes. These weren't dogfights. These were hit and run tactics which worked extremely well against the Zero.

VW-IceFire
05-03-2004, 06:10 PM
There was only one category that the Zero outclassed the Hellcat in and that was the slow speed continous turn.

Fire up FB and you'll find that the Zero has every other plane except maybe the I-16 and biplanes beat in this category.

Everything else the Hellcat outclasses the Zero. Speed, climb, dive, high speed manuverability, horsepower, firepower, durability, and roll rate. That is stressed in as many books, articles, and pilot accounts that I've read.

Meantime, keep in mind that the Hellcat was deployed in late 1943 and that the Wildcat was the one that was the primary USN fighter until that point. Also keep in mind that although the Corsair was deployed earlier than the Hellcat it was not a carrierborne fighter until after the Hellcat was well established thus the level of respect the Hellcat got (although the Corsair was known as whistling death to the ground troops to be sure).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BlitzPig_DDT
05-03-2004, 07:25 PM
"high speed" over stresses the point really. I keep readin @220mph. That's only 354kph. Not really all that fast, and something like 160mph below the Hellcat's top speed too.

And....since it out handled it over 220, it would be very close in the upper 100's.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

ImpStarDuece
05-03-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
P40s and F4Fs beating down Zeroes? Let's not let the thread go down that path--there are plenty of other threads to argue that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if they didn't, the AVG would've been anhilated rather quickly and the USN would've been wiped out early on.

Neither of those occured. Clearly, the F4F and P-40 were beating the Japanese. Even if some anti-US and/or pro-IJN/AAF don't like to acknowledge it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say that the p-40 and the F4F were beating Zero's. Properly flown this pair could just about hold its own against the zero, using co-operative tactics they COULD beat it, but it wasn't a picnic. UNtil the F6F cam otu the USN/USMC pilots didn't really have anything that could otufly a Zero.

A p-40 flown by an experianced pilot would triumph over a Zero only if it used correct tactics and was well supported. B'N'Zing from superior altitude, using the heavier weight, better hp and top dive speed of the Warhawk to attack and then shallow climb to extend distance and altitude over the target were the tactics that the AVG mastered and used to great effect.

Getting slow and low in a fight against a Zero was a sure way to die. I know the Curtiss and Grumman manouvered well at low altitude but they were still bested by a slim but siginificant margin in roll, turn, acceleration and climb performance below 200-250 mph.

In a classic WWI style low speed dogfight i would rather fly a zero than almost any other plane pre 1943. After that give me a F6F or an F4U and watch me B'n'Z till my hearts content.

The evidence that the AVG didn't fight Zeros is, for my mind at least, quite overwhelming. Look up Eric Shilling's article on the Flying Tigers at the Cradle of Aviation website and you will see that he never claims that the AVG fought zeros. Because of the reputation of this aircraft US pilots often claimed they shot down a Zero when they actually bagged something else. Similarly it would of been likely that they would of claimed to have been shot down by a Zero over a hayabusa or another JApanese type. Much like German BoB veterans claiming to have bagged Spitfires over Hurricanes.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

necrobaron
05-03-2004, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There was only one category that the Zero outclassed the Hellcat in and that was the slow speed continous turn.

Fire up FB and you'll find that the Zero has every other plane except maybe the I-16 and biplanes beat in this category.

Everything else the Hellcat outclasses the Zero. Speed, climb, dive, high speed manuverability, horsepower, firepower, durability, and roll rate. That is stressed in as many books, articles, and pilot accounts that I've read.

Meantime, keep in mind that the Hellcat was deployed in late 1943 and that the Wildcat was the one that was the primary USN fighter until that point. Also keep in mind that although the Corsair was deployed earlier than the Hellcat it was not a carrierborne fighter until after the Hellcat was well established thus the level of respect the Hellcat got (although the Corsair was known as whistling death to the ground troops to be sure).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

heywooood
05-03-2004, 09:21 PM
I've never seen anyone present a point as cleanly or as concisely as Ice-fire. ~S~

WUAF_Badsight
05-03-2004, 09:56 PM
combat records are examples of how well men worked together

they are useless in deciding which plane was best

try comparing like with like

i mean look at the HP the Hellcat has & then look at the HP the Zero has ...... kinda a unfair comarison wouldnt you say ?

compare the Zero with American fighters with similer HP to the Zero

wont find the Zero so out-classed will you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DONB3397
05-03-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
I coulda _swore_ it said that the F6F Hellcat was outclassed by the Zero, then segueing into saying that the F4U gave the US the air superiority it needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I taped this program, which covered the development and deployment of the F4U in the Pacific. The reference was to the Wildcat, not the Hellcat. The only specific reference to the Hellcat was an acknowledgement that it was superior (to the Corsair) in carrier ops.

I thought it was a pretty shallow program and unlikely to stay around in my library long.

With regards to the Hellcat vs. Zero, I've read several biographies and articles/interviews by IJN and JAAF pilots, and a couple of pretty good post-war reviews by surviving IJN commanders. I don't recall any of the Zero pilots or spokesmen saying the Zero was better than the Hellcat. Sakai wrote that he encountered the Hellcat in the Mariannas after recuperating from his eye injury, and felt it was far superior to the Zero. Jiro Horikosi, an IJN commander in the Pacific, said that the failure of the Japanese to match allied technology was highlighted in the differences in firepower, reliability and agility of the heavier Hellcat.

The Zero was a world-class fighter. But the Hellcat seems to have been better.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMzZlABx8EwLZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death."
-- William Wordsworth

sugaki
05-04-2004, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I taped this program, which covered the development and deployment of the F4U in the Pacific. The reference was to the Wildcat, not the Hellcat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It didn't say "The Hellcat was inferior to the Zero," but it showed the F4F and F6F in consecutive sequence, then segued to the Zero saying "Nothing could match the Zero" (or something along those lines).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Zero was a world-class fighter. But the Hellcat seems to have been better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No arguments there. I used to hate the Hellcat, just the fact that I used to be a crazy Zero fanboy when I was a kid. Grown out of that, and now appreciate the Hellcat. Sturdy, easy to fly, powerful, versatile (though perhaps not as much as an F4U). It's a well-made plane, testament to the genius of US research and scrutinizing of the Zero's weaknesses.

-Aki

Giganoni
05-04-2004, 01:49 AM
I don't hate the Hellcat, I look forward to dying many times because of it in my Ki-43 II, but I will try to fight on (back from the dead?). BTW, wasn't the Ki-43 an even better turn fighter than the Zero? At least at slow speed I thought it was.

Gunner_361st
05-04-2004, 10:23 AM
Indeed it was, Giganoni. From everything I've read about the Oscar, it was one of the most agile monoplane fighters of WWII.

It was apparently 800 pounds lighter than the A6M2 and used the same engine (at least initially). American Pilots testified on it's extreme agility, where the Oscar would do a double-immelman topped off by a hammerhead stall, only something aircraft with exceptional powerloading like the Oscar could do.

However, it paid prices for it's extreme agility. Depending on the version, it only had two rifle caliber or two heavy machine-guns in the nose. It was also slower than the Zero in level flight.

Like the Navy's Zero though, the Imperial Japanese Army's Peregrine Falcon (Allied code name was Oscar) was very fragile to battle damage.

It will be a fun plane to fly, no doubt, but dangerous too. Better keep your situational awareness or you can go from perfectly fine to a flying fireball in a second. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

Rebel_Yell_21
05-05-2004, 04:50 PM
Oscar had fairly unique butterfly flaps that were a significant part of the reason why it was so amazingly agile.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg