Flying torches

[tocaff]

Gee, I've told you before about the island's correct name and it is on the UV map so what's the problem?

[decaro]

And not all of the UV islands have Anglo names; aren't many of them called by French, Latin or even Spanish proper nouns?

[Ike99]

Gee, I've told you before about the island's correct name and it is on the UV map so what's the problem?

errr...I´m human.

[:D][:D][:D]

[tocaff]

Really!?!

[mdiehl]

mdiehl, what is your basis for stating a Wildcat is more manuverable than a Zero? Objectively speaking of course.

I think I said that it was more maneuverable than the Zero at high speed. This has been discussed only a hundred or so times in the Matrix fora. But it's there in most of the F4F pilots comments, it's there in the Aleutians Zero test flights, it's there in some of the Japanese pilot accounts (IIRC) and it's documented in the various sources that I mentioned before. It's so well known and been stated outright by so many American and Japanese pilots and in alot of histories written since 1980 that I'm surprised it's an issue.

Do you have a graph of the Wildcat and Zero flight envelopes? Corner velocities, etc, etc or any other factual, statistical information on Zero and Wildcat flight characteristics? If you do produce them.

Seen graphs on that along time ago. Don't have 'em for myself however.

Because the overwelming general concensus among Allied aviators who flew the Wildcat against Zeros testify, Zeros are more manuverable. Do not dogfight with them, do not try to turn with them, do not try to out climb them, etc., etc. As well the testing of the nearly intact Zero captured in Alaska by the US said Zeros are more manuverable than our fighters.

Again, in numerous accounts there are qualifiers that you have overlooked. At high speed the Zeke was a pig. The control surfaces became increasingly difficult to move starting around 270 mph. Between the F4Fs more rugged construction and the greater output of its engine it simply could roll faster.

If I can find the time and no one else bothers between now and whenever I'll give you some cites and page numbers. But honestly this has been demonstrated SOOO many times beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not feeling very motivated.

"This is cherry picking specific points in a flight envelope and not any actual measure of manuverabilty."

Roll rate is one very important component of maneuverability and you can find good info on the F4Fs superior roll rate with a simple google search. Like I said, when I get more time I can send you the cites. But if you're anxious to know or something I think you could find the info quite quickly on your own.

If your question is what was the pilot survivability % between Zero and Wildcat pilots, I don´t know. Certainly for the Zero pilots it was quite low. They went home if ill or wounded. The Allied flyers rotated their pilots out of the combat area after so many missions yes? But they had the luxury of a much larger pilot pool.

That's not it. I was talking kill ratios. The funny thing about those extra air miles from Rabaul to Cactus is that in the CV vs CV engagements, most of which occurred at ranges less than 240 miles, the F4F drivers consistently won. Other factors had alot to do with the Cactus campaign, and many of the weighed heavily against the F4Fs. Certainly, F4F pilots were billeted in an area much more conducive to fatigue, what with being logistically isolated for 8 weeks, sniped, infiltrated, and subject to naval and IJA artillery bombardment.

[tocaff]

Henderson Field was a lovely place for diseases too.  Living in tents wasn't fun.  Have you ever seen any of the pictures of fueling the Wildcats there with hand pumps from the drums?  Rabul was the Hilton in comparison at that point in time.

[OG_Gleep]

Something I always wondered that maybe those of you who have read the Japanese accounts of things; why did the Japanese send their strategic reserve in with absolutley no cover at all. Those troops would have probably been enough to tip the balance at Henderson field. The marines were hanging on by their fingernails.
 
If I am not mistaken they had the resources, even if they had withdrawn their carriers. Never understood that given how important the security of the convoy was strategically speaking.

[tocaff]

The Japanese were slow to realize the importance of the Solomon area and then sent forces there slowly at first.  They underestimated the US resolve and desires and when they finally did wake up it was to late. 

The Japanese planes weren't capable of carrying a heavy enough bomb load to knock out Henderson and the Tokyo Express wasn't a sustainable method.  As long as the US had an operational airfield on Guadalcanal the IJN wasn't capable of running (safely) a convoy of slow moving transports there with the needed men and supplies to oust the Marines. Fast transports don't carry enough of anything to support an operation on the scale needed.

Historically the Japanese attacks on the Marines were undermanned and under supplied and yet they almost knocked the Marines for a loop.  Maybe the Japanese should've shown a bit more patience and built up the men and supplies more before launching attacks.

[Ike99]

Again, in numerous accounts there are qualifiers that you have overlooked. At high speed the Zeke was a pig. The control surfaces became increasingly difficult to move starting around 270 mph. Between the F4Fs more rugged construction and the greater output of its engine it simply could roll faster.

The Zero handling became increasingly difficult at 270mph...So?

That says nothing about a Wildcats handling at 270mph+. At higher speeds above corner velocity every aircraft makes wider turns.

And besides this, dogfights are not fought at 270+mph between Zeros and Wildcats.

Your 270+ MPH magical number is close to a Wildcats maximum speed at 6,000 meters. It´s even slower the farther down in altitude it has.

Can a Wildcat fight a Zero at near top speed constant?

No. As I said before, it´s not chess. It´s not I make a move, he makes a move. Dogfights are very fluid affairs.

What happens when your Wildcat does this turn at your magical 270 mph if what you say is true? It immediately will start to lose its energy. The speed and altitude will come down and I suspect with its little stubby square wings, heavy body and slow overall top speed come down very fast.

Again, cherry picking magical points on a flight envelope graph do not equate into one fighter being more maneuverable over another. The Zero was undeniably a more manuverable aircraft. To all those whom it mattered most in 1942 knew this.

About the best Wildcat pilots could do was what they did, dive down on Zeros from an altitude advanatage and then run. Hoping they had enough altitude and dive speed advantage to get away because remember, in level flight Zeros were faster. That, or shoot Zeros off of each others tails. Basically the Thatch Weave.

Later, with the Hellcat, when they had the speed and power advantage, yes, they could mix it up and follow Zeros up in loops and everything.

With a Wildcat, no.

[tocaff]

The UV Forum's very own pit bull.  He chomps down on something and never stops, never gives up, no matter what.

[Ike99]

The UV Forum's very own pit bull. He chomps down on something and never stops, never gives up, no matter what.

If someone makes a claim Tocaff that breaks 70 years of traditional thinking is it too much to ask for it to be substantiated?

Hans-Surely you can't be serious. The answer should be obvious to some one who claims to be so higly educated as you.

And Todd, because you enjoy checking people spelling, Hans is clearly missing the ¨H¨ here in ¨Highly¨ In the future please point out everyone on their English spelling errors regardless of national origin, race, creed, or political affiliation. I mean if you are objective of course.

[:D]

Hans-You claimed in your private message to me to be able to read and write in three languages in an obvious attempt to impress me with your level of intelligence.

I seem to remember that private message Hans. The one about ¨village idiots¨ and ¨3rd world countries.¨I wish you would stop being nice and tell me what you really think.


Actually Hans, maybe you should run for an ambassador somewhere or other high position. You might make an improvement over those of recent years. You certainly could do no worse.

[SuluSea]

It's been pointed out many times in this thread that statistics prove the WIldcat fought the Zero to a standstill. Machines of war are measured by their ability to assist in killing the enemy and not by the selective specs you post. You post specs like it's a race or something. Looks like you're trying to convince yourself of something instead of other members.
 
 
 

[tocaff]

I only noticed your spelling error of one of the major objectives in our game because I have told you of it several times before.  I really don't care who spells things wrong or not.  I just thought that with your obsession with "facts" that you'd want to be correct with that too.  Consider it a friendly correction instead of an assault.

66 years ago in the skies of the SW & Central Pacific the Zeros and Wildcats went at it and there was no clear winner overall except for the fact that the Japanese forces were stopped cold in their advance.  Both planes were good at what they did and you (meaning the pilots involved) were a fool to play to the other guy's strengths.  So anyone who claims that either of these 2 types of planes were clearly superior to the other is wrong.  Just like in sports, nothing is won or lost on paper, rather on the field of engagement.

[jeffs]

ORIGINAL: tocaff


66 years ago in the skies of the SW & Central Pacific the Zeros and Wildcats went at it and there was no clear winner overall except for the fact that the Japanese forces were stopped cold in their advance.  Both planes were good at what they did and you (meaning the pilots involved) were a fool to play to the other guy's strengths.  So anyone who claims that either of these 2 types of planes were clearly superior to the other is wrong.  Just like in sports, nothing is won or lost on paper, rather on the field of engagement.

Such common sense, rational answers have no place in such a polite discussion![:-]

Why care what happened in real life when you can argue unprovable theory![&o]

[Ike99]

It's been pointed out many times in this thread that statistics prove the WIldcat fought the Zero to a standstill.

Yes they did, but there are various other attributing factors that come in during air to air combat that attribute to kill ratios. Here, flight distance from Rabaul, US tactics and radios, radar, etc.

Think Battle of Britain, & British radar advantage. Think ME-262 and total Allied air superiority in Europe, shooting these jets down as they came off their own runways.

And for some people here...Think Argentine Mirages opperating at extreme limits of fuel against British Harriers.

[:D]

A 1 to 1 ratio does not make a Wildcat a more manuverable or better fighter than a Zero. All traditional thinking is it was out performed by the Wildcat. The stats I´ve seen and pilot writing I´ve seen would support this thinking.

So, if you wish to break from that thinking...show me some flight envelope graphs that prove a Wildcat can outmanuever a Zero. I´d be very curious to see them.

Otherwise you have just a controversial unproven theory.

So anyone who claims that either of these 2 types of planes were clearly superior to the other is wrong.

I don´t say the Zero was dominant over a Wildcat. We are not comparing say, the Corsairs dominance over Zeros. But Zeros did have an advantage over Wildacat.

[tocaff]

Argentine Mirages operating at their extreme ranges.  Come on Ike the Brits weren't stupid enough to make things easier.  Those Mirages were only carrying 1 Exocet missile instead of 2 because Argentina didn't have many of them.  The Harrier had a superior electronic suite than the Argentinian Mirages and in the modern world electronics are at least the equal in importance as any other attribute as long as the fight is in the missile envelope and not at gun range.

The fact that the Japanese didn't have radar and the US did only helped to give an earlier warning and more accurate vectoring  for intercept.  It never shot down a single plane by itself.  The same held true for The Battle of Britain.  Face it in the BOB the Spitfire was the superior plane and fought the German fighters while the Hurricanes went for the bombers.

The long distance from Rabul to Guadalcanal was where the Zero did better against the Wildcats, Marine pilots.  Shorter distance fights, where you would expect better results, and the Zero fared worse, USN pilots.

And in closing I would like to agree with your comment about a 1 to 1 kill ratio not making the Wildcat a better plane than the Zero.  Come to think of it the same logic would say that the Zero wasn't a better plane than the Wildcat.  Maybe the fact that they fought eachother to a draw says volumes.

[Ike99]

Japanese Ace Yukiyoshi Wakamatsu
18 Kills, including...

2 P-40 Warhawks of the 74th FS/23rd FG

Of Yukiyoshis 18 kills at least half come from P-51 Mustangs. The tail and front of his aircraft were painted red gaining him the title,

¨The Red Nosed Ace¨

The Chinese government put a price on him and his aircraft, such was his flying skills and reputation.

[Ike99]

Argentine Mirages operating at their extreme ranges. Come on Ike the Brits weren't stupid enough to make things easier. Those Mirages were only carrying 1 Exocet missile instead of 2 because Argentina didn't have many of them. The Harrier had a superior electronic suite than the Argentinian Mirages and in the modern world electronics are at least the equal in importance as any other attribute as long as the fight is in the missile envelope and not at gun range.

Tocaff. Argentine Mirages are fighters, not capable of carrying Exocets. The Mirage fighters were not capabale of refueling in the air at that time.

The Argentine Super E´s are modified, and do, and did, carry the Exocet. Not the Mirages. No, they did not carry one Exocet because there were not many of them. It was for fuel reasons. Under the left wing was a drop tank for extra fuel and under the right the Exocet.

Despite this extra drop tank it was still necessary to meet a KC130 tanker for inflight refueling during every Exocet mission.

But this is about 40 years off topic and will have to wait until Matrix publishes a Malvinas wargame. I just wanted to correct you on this.

[tocaff]

I stand corrected about the Super Entard, about which you are correct.

The # of Exocets in the arsenal of Argentina was to small to fight with, recheck your data.  The French hadn't filled the order and the Brits were surprised by them being in the hands of Argentina.

Individual scores of Japanese pilots are something that I will never accept as accurate now that I know that they counted group kills instead of individual.  After the war trying to count individual scores based on what the pilots said is to easy to pad one's score.

[mdiehl]

The Zero handling became increasingly difficult at 270mph...So?

At higher speeds the Wildcat cornered inside the zero. THAT is the problem. It's because the control systems attached to the very large control surfaces on the Zeke (which large control surfaces made it very maneuverable at low speed) were not sufficiently robust to operate those control surfaces at high speed. This is an established fact for which there are numerous substantiating Japanese pilot accounts.

And besides this, dogfights are not fought at 270+mph between Zeros and Wildcats.

Dogfights between F4Fs and A6Ms occurred at all speeds. The longer they lasted, the slower the speeds became. At high speeds, F4Fs were often able to turn inside Zeroes, thus placing the Zeroes under fire, thus shooting down the Zeros. There are numerous Japanese and American aviator anecdotes that attest to same.

Can a Wildcat fight a Zero at near top speed constant?

A whole lot depends on the initial circumstances of the engagement, which was the interval in which most of the critical damage done by either side occurred. The longer two planes stayed engaged with each other, the more energy and altitude loss, and the more the circusmtances favored the Zero. Often, however, engagements occurred at higher speeds, with Zeroes even getting "the bounce," overtaking their targets after failing to destroy their targets (to which the F4F drivers could thank the F4Fs durability), with the result that the F4F turned inside the Zero, and owing to their very excellent training in deflection shooting, shot down the Zero (for which many A6M drivers could blame the A6Ms lousy durability).

The plain facts are these.

At ranges that greatly favored the Zero in CV vs CV engagements, USN pilots in F4Fs tended to shoot down more zeros than zero drivers could shoot down in Wildcats. Because these engagements occurred well within the Japanese pilots operational radius, and at ranges where fatigue levels between pilots were equal, and from bases where logistical support was assured (carriers being what they are), they represent the best "straight up" comparisons between the two types of a.c. And in these engagements, the Zeroes tended to lose.

What happens when your Wildcat does this turn at your magical 270 mph if what you say is true? It immediately will start to lose its energy. The speed and altitude will come down and I suspect with its little stubby square wings, heavy body and slow overall top speed come down very fast.

All of that is correct. Your error seems to be that you assume that all engagements start or finish inside the energy and altitude circumstances required to favor the zero.

Again, cherry picking magical points on a flight envelope graph do not equate into one fighter being more maneuverable

I agree. The only person here who has maintained that the Zero was always more maneubverable than the F4F is yourself. As you have noted, you can only support that conclusion if you cherry pick that part of the flight envelope that favors the Zero. As everyone else here has noted, the F4F was more maneuverable in some circumstances, less maneuverable in others. So panglossian claims like "X was better than Y" aren't really accurate. It all depended on circumstances.

Despite all of that, the plain fact is that in CV vs CV engagements, the USN got the better of the IJN in fighter vs fighter combat. In the Guadalcanal campaign, land based F4Fs lost, slightly overall, through Nov 1942. By January [edit] 1943 it was a dead draw.

The Zero was undeniably a more manuverable aircraft.

That is not generally correct. It is only a factually correct statement in a cherry-picked portion of the flight envelope.

To all those whom it mattered most in 1942 knew this.

That is not correct. There are dozens of examples of F4F drivers using their superior high speed maneuverability to turn inside and destroy Zeroes.

About the best Wildcat pilots could do was what they did, dive down on Zeros from an altitude advanatage and then run.

That is not correct. There are dozens of examples of F4F drivers using their superior high speed maneuverability to turn inside and destroy Zeroes.

Hoping they had enough altitude and dive speed advantage to get away because remember, in level flight Zeros were faster. That, or shoot Zeros off of each others tails. Basically the Thatch Weave.

That is not correct. The Thach Weave or Beam Defense was a defense specifically invoked to give supporting F4Fs a high degree of survivability in the event that the energy and altitude parameters favored the Zero. Which they often did, both to the credit of the Zeros staying after the wildcats, and the fortitude (perhaps ill advised) of the Wildcats staying with the zeros. But where the fight occurred initially or stayed at high speeds, the F4Fs had a compelling initial advantage in maneuverability, firepower, and durability, and this advantage served them well.

Later, with the Hellcat, when they had the speed and power advantage, yes, they could mix it up and follow Zeros up in loops and everything.

That is not correct. The F6F had the same advantage as the F4F.... superior durability, superior high speed maneuverability, and superior firepower. The A6M could still easily out-turn an F6F at airspeeds below 260 mph, and out-climb the F6F from parked to 18,000 feet. What the F6F had was greater level flight airspeed. That added a card to USN pilots hands -- they could overtake a Zero in level flight, and outrun one in level flight, and outclimb one at higher altitude (owing to the multistage superchargers and variable pitch props in the F6F).