Flying torches

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: OG_Gleep

zero was lightly armored and (I could be wrong) carried less ammo

Didn't they only carry 60 rounds of cannon ammo?

I'm not sure, but back in my "Aces of the Pacific" days, I always ran out of ammo quickly flying the Zero. [X(] (I know, a computer game is not a good measurer of RL conditions).

[mdiehl]

mdiehl is this a dogfight? Your Smith decended down on a Zero, lined it up and and shot it. Did the Zero pilots even know he was there before he fired? From what you said here, no

From what Smith's AAR noted, the answer is clearly "yes the Japanese pilot was aware he was being pursued and shot at and despite evasive flying was unable to shake loose the F4F before being shot down." My point was to selectively choose an anecdote that supports my point, as you have done, as a way of illustrating how a selectively chosen anecdote is not necessarily widely informative.

And where did the other Zero go?.

Immaterial.

I´m assuming both Zero pilots were probably out of ammo and ...

It is consistent with a biased agenda to make assumptions that are not indicated in any data.

Is that the best evidence your ¨world renowned¨ historians can give that makes Wildcats as manuverable as Zeros?

At this point, it seems like you are being truly disingenuous. You are the only person who have suggested that a Wildact was as maneuverable as a Zero. You keep raising this straw man argument because, if you can find someone to defend it, you can knock it down. The problem that you have in this thread, is that no one has claimed the Wildcat was as maneuverable as the Zero. It has only been noted that the Wildcat is more maneuverable than the Zero when both are at high speed. You have been given several sources where you can read about it, and you have been given several examples of why that relationship at high speed held true. At this point, if you will read said sources, you will have a better understanding of the subject. If you will not read them, you will continue to be ignorant and uninformed.

Well, unlike your claims, I can give credible sources for my claims that make Zeros more maneuverable than Wildcats.

That is not correct. I have offered you three sources that discuss in detail how these a.c. performed at different airspeeds. If you are unwilling to look at them, then continued responsibility for your ignorance rests solely with yourself.

Go to your own national archives and look up the ¨Bureau of Aeronautics¨ interviews. The ¨United States Pacific Fleet, South Pacific Force, Naval Air Combat Intelligence¨ reports of that time.

I have. I have also read the accounts of people who turned with Zeros and won. The same national archives also provide assessments that indicate that USN intel figured they were shooting down three Zeros per wildcat in 1942, which claim was not correct. The same intel quotes Thach as saying that the Zero was far more maneuverable (which, as I have already noted, was simply true below about 270 mph) but that USN pilots were simply better pilots than Zero pilots, which in his view accounted for the Wildcat's ability to hold its own against the Zero.

In the end you have to get back to the details of how these planes worked at different speeds, and how their pilots flew them. Frankly, your dogmatic stance on this is strange. Everyone with even rudimentary knowledge of history knows that aircraft performed differently at different altitudes and airspeeds.

If you had been at Guadacanal in 42... extended nonsequitur rant unsupported by data and explicitly contradicted by the actual combat record from Guadalcanal.

OK then.

OG_Gleep says:

I think it was implied that the Jap pilot noticed he was being shot at and couldn't shake him.

Not only implied but actually explicit in the quoted combat narrative.

Tocaff says:

If you insist that the Zero was so superior then the Japanese pilots must've been horrible not to obtain better than a 1 to 1 kill ratio.

Exactly. Strangely, this conclusion (that USN pilots were simply much better than Japanese ones) was Thach's assessment and made it through PacFleet assessments of the situation of actions through October 1942. I have always figured that Thach's assessment was inaccurate, since "experience" allegedly trumps training. And yet, when you consider how often Japanese pilots tried to out-turn high-energy F4Fs and died trying, perhaps Thach was correct after all. In all those battles where the F4Fs turned inside Zeros, I figured that was probably the control surface lock-up problem that many Japanese drivers mentioned that the Zero experienced at high air-speeds. But perhaps Ike is correct, and all of that was simply after-the-fact excuse-making by inferior Japanese pilots.

Denniss says:

There's no question, the Zero was superior to the Wildcatin maneuverability. But not under all circumstances. The higher the alt and the faster the speed the closer the gap between these two.

We agree. Ike seems inclined not to agree.

Charbroiled says:

As far as kill ratios go, while the zero may (or may not) be more manouverable, the Wildcat had better armor and more firepower, while the zero was lightly armored and (I could be wrong) carried less ammo. The kill ratio could be explained that the Wildcat could take numerous hits and keep flying, but only a few hits were all that was needed to take down a zero.

Absolutely. Durability is one of the characteristics that go into making a fighter a good fighter. Simplistic generalizations like "better" aren't worth much. That said, at high speed, an F4F could turn inside and easily outroll an A6M. This is one of the reasons why many Japanese zeroes at Gudalcanal were shot down after overataking and passing (but failing to shoot down in their initial firing pass) F4Fs traveling at higher airspeeds. There are numerous specific instances of that sort of thing in Lundstrom's book on the actions at Guadalcanal.

[tocaff]

Yes the Zero carried all of 60 rounds per 20mm.  The pilot could turn the cannons off if he wanted and rely on the more accurate and lighter hitting .30 cal mgs.  

[OG_Gleep]

I'm not sure, but back in my "Aces of the Pacific" days, I always ran out of ammo quickly flying the Zero. [X(] (I know, a computer game is not a good measurer of RL conditions).

Hehe I refused to fly Japanese planes [:D]

*edit wrong quote
Abandoning this line - I have a really bad memory.

But that was well put mdhiel

[Ike99]

From what Smith's AAR noted, the answer is clearly "yes the Japanese pilot was aware he was being pursued and shot at and despite evasive flying was unable to shake loose the F4F before being shot down."

Event 1. Smith Fired
Event 2. Twisting and turning damaged Zero

Smith does not say the Zero was twisting or turning or that it performed any defensive manuevers whatsoever before he fired.

Logical Conclusion.

The Zero was unaware of Smith before Smith fired.

It is consistent with a biased agenda to make assumptions that are not indicated in any data.

There is plenty of data. It would not seem consistant with Japanese personal, or military code for a Zero pilot to break off an engagement against a single Wildcat. The logical assumption would be the Zero was out of ammo from strafing the airfield as Smith said he witnessed it doing immediately prior. Only someone with an agenda who throws out piles upon piles of pilot and intelligence reports because it doesn´t fit into its wishful thinking would find another speculative explanation for the Zero breaking off engagement.

You are the only person who have suggested that a Wildact was as maneuverable as a Zero....The problem that you have in this thread, is that no one has claimed the Wildcat was as maneuverable as the Zero.

What?

Are you not the same person who has been saying Wildcats can dog fight with Zeros and are as manuverable as Zeros for 2 pages now?

That is not correct. I have offered you three sources that discuss in detail how these a.c. performed at different airspeeds.

This is correct. You offered me three books. You have not offered any credible source material for your claims, and, it seems, as you´re so evasive about source material neither did your authors. For example, where did you get this 270 mph number? You never have said. As a matter of fact, between all the smoke screen, you have offered scant material a Wildcat can equal a Zero while I have offered many interviews and reports with quotes.

If you are unwilling to look at them, then continued responsibility for your ignorance rests solely with yourself.

The Buenos Aires book stores seem to be all out of books published by the US Naval Institute from world renowned authors.

I have also read the accounts of people who turned with Zeros and won.

Blah, blah,...source please. I´ve read there are Aliens and Sea Monsters from very convincing stories, but, I would like to have a look at some source material from you, please, and allow me to form an opinion without it being fed to me by a book.

The same national archives also provide assessments that indicate that USN intel figured they were shooting down three Zeros per wildcat in 1942, which claim was not correct. The same intel quotes...

Smoke and mirrors. Apples and Oranges. These are intelligence ¨assessment¨ reports, not a ¨test¨ report from a captured Zero to measure its performance. An intelligent ¨assessment¨ by it´s very nature...blah, not worth the key strokes.

Exactly. Strangely, this conclusion (that USN pilots were simply much better than Japanese ones) was Thach's assessment and made it through PacFleet assessments of the situation of actions through October 1942.

Not strange at all. It was nothing out of the ordinary for Allied commanders to tell their men, ¨We are the best. We´ll kick the hell out of the Japanese¨ etc. etc. etc. Something quite common for them to tell their men and believe it themselves actually. However, this is not a general concensus when looking at other post combat interviews.

The best you can do is fall back on a 1 to 1 ratio. By itself this number doesn´t say a lot.

For example, if I tell you...Ryoji Ohara in a Zero shot down a Corsair over Guadalcanal flown by Major william Gise from VMF-124 and damaged two others, one being flown by Lt. William Cannon in a single day what´s the conclusion?

If we stay focussed in at this level and throw out other factors one could logicaly assume the Zero is at least equal to the Corsair. However, if we weigh in some tactical factors, those being Ohara began the fight at a 7,000 ft altitude advantage. Ohara shot down Gise with a high speed diving pass and Gise was probably not aware of Ohara until it was over we get a better view.

Your claim of 1 to 1 equals fighter equality does not stand up when factoring in the tactical situation in the Guadalcanal campaign. Zeros operating at extreme range with an 8 hour flight. Radar and coast watchers alerting Guadalcanal of when the Zeros were coming and in what numbers allowing them to gain an altitude advantage most times over the Zeros. Zeros fighting with the drop tank attached. Ground fire coming from Guadalcanal itself, etc. etc.

If truly the wildcat and Zero were equals in the air, given these numerous advantages it had, the Wildcat would have had a better ratio than 1 to 1 with the Zero.

Your 1 to 1 ratio actually works against you when looking at all the factors.

If the situation was reversed and Zeros would have had these same advantages over Wildcats what would the score have been? You would have had to take your 1 to 1 and thrown it out the window after the first mission.

[Ike99]

BTW mdiehl, I´m debating the issue and not you so there is nothing personal against you. I have these test reports on PDF if you don´t have them and want them.

[OG_Gleep]

Ike, do you happen to have Japanese statistics for Zeroes lost during the Wildcats operation? PH till Phase out?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Yes the Zero carried all of 60 rounds per 20mm.  The pilot could turn the cannons off if he wanted and rely on the more accurate and lighter hitting .30 cal mgs.  

Re Shattered Sword: At Midway, where IJN CAP was shooting-up a lot of US planes, the Zeros soon ran out of 20 mm, and when they did, it was much harder for them to down the more heavilly armored US air.

Funny, I thought this thread had died, but we're going on page 6 -- OG will make Matrix Elite Guard at this rate!

[OG_Gleep]

Hehe I'm not the one in this one. I'm more along the lines of a cheerleader at a hockey game.

[decaro]

As long as you're posting, you're increasing your tally.
Weren't you just "Matrix Veteran" a few threads ago?

[mdiehl]

Event 1. Smith Fired
Event 2. Twisting and turning damaged Zero

That is a misrepresentation of the event. Nothing stipulates that the evading zero only in effect 'seemed to be twisting and turning because it was damaged.' Clearly it was trying to evade being destroyed. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that the diving F4F had sufficient energy to stay with the evading plane. In any case, as I have noted on numerous occasions, if bother to read a little on the matter you can find numerous accounts of F4Fs turning inside A6Ms when both were operating at high speed. You need only to go look at some of the references for which complete cbibliographic citations have been provided for your convenience.

There is plenty of data. It would not seem consistant with Japanese personal, or military code for a Zero pilot to ...

This isn't actual evidence, it's you reading something into the account that is not indicated in the account. Therefore, this, errm, "reading" of the incident in question has no merit.

Are you not the same person who has been saying Wildcats can dog fight with Zeros and are as manuverable as Zeros for 2 pages now?

I have not seen anyone make that claim. The specific claim that I have made, and that others have supported, and that you can read in the aforementioned cited volumes, is that at HIGH SPEED the F4F-4 was more maneuverable and specifically out-roll and turn inside ("cornering") an A6M2. I did not claim anywhere that the F4F was always as maneuverable or more maneuverable than an A6M. All of the evidence compellingly indicates that their relative maneuverability was dependent on IAS. As speeds increased, the control surfaces on Zeroes became relatively difficult to use, roll rates decreased, and turning radii increased (both as a function of increased kinetic energy, and as a function of the fact that the ailerons were more difficult to move from the neutral position). In contrast, the F4Fs roll rate actually improved at high speed, and because its ailerons were still quite effective at high speed, it could turn inside a Zero.

You have not offered any credible source material for your claims,

The aforementioned peer-reviewed highly credible historical scholarly studies make far more extensive use of original source material, both Japanese and US, than you or I will be able to glean from combing the internet. I recommend you actually read them. If you insist on simply disregarding them, there is little point in discussing the subject with you.

The Buenos Aires book stores seem to be all out of books published by the US Naval Institute from world renowned authors.

Multiple copies of both volumes may be purchased from Amazon. Seconds before I wrote this sentence, I checked, and both volumes are available as used paperbacks for roughly $10 for the first volume and $14 for the second volume. Since you have access to the internet (which I think should be self-evident), you would have no trouble obtaining them.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&index=b ... rom&page=1

Blah, blah,...source please.

Heh. I already provided you with three. The rest of your extended, um, commentary is non-sequitur. Up to this point:

Not strange at all. It was nothing out of the ordinary for Allied commanders to tell their men, ¨We are the best. We´ll kick the hell out of the Japanese¨ etc. etc. etc.

Oddly, you make that claim having just posted a whole bunch of claims that don't support your claim. You seem to have derailed your own argument here. Thach's assessment noted that the Zero was more maneuverable and observed that the superior kill ratio of the Wildcat, its durability, and the superior skill of USN and USMC pilots essentially made up for Thach's concerns about the F4F. Thach of course was one guy. Bauer, O'Hare, and others all had different things to say about the plane, Japanese pilots, and the ability of the F4F to stay with a radically turning Zeke when the F4F had sufficient energy.

You could read about all of that if you dared.

The best you can do is fall back on a 1 to 1 ratio. By itself this number doesn´t say a lot.

Actually it does. These are sustained loss ratios over the duration of campaigns. Thus your straw man argument regarding a single incident of a Zero allegedly shooting down a corsair is non-sequitur. The sustained loss ratios through campaigns of Corsairs vs Zeroes clearly indicates that the Corsair + pilot was a far more lethal instrument to its enemies than the Zero + pilot.

If we stay focussed in at this level and throw out other factors one could logicaly assume the Zero is at least equal to the Corsair.

Only if one imagines that a single anecdote from one combat encounter serves as a good frame of reference for assessing entire campaigns.

Your claim of 1 to 1 equals fighter equality does not stand up when factoring in the tactical situation in the Guadalcanal campaign. Zeros operating at extreme range with an 8 hour flight. Radar and coast watchers alerting Guadalcanal of when the Zeros were coming and in what numbers allowing them to gain an altitude advantage most times over the Zeros. Zeros fighting with the drop tank attached. Ground fire coming from Guadalcanal itself, etc. etc.

There's actually very little to your etc etc. In direct, face to face confrontations between USN pilots operating from CVs at ranges favorable to the A6M (200-250 miles), the USN F4F pilots consistently won. They achieved a BETTER than 1:1 kill ratio against Zeroes. So under circumstances that represent the nearest thing to "neutral ground" the F4F outperformed the Zero. The ratio only becomes 1:1 if one lumps the Guadalcanal campaign (in which the kill ratio slightly favored the Japanese) with the 1942 carrier battles (in which the kill ratios strongly favored the Americans).

Guadalcanal featured disadvantages for both sides. It is true that A6M drivers had to fly a long way to fight. The USN and USMC pilots at Guadalcanal, however, were on the whole more fatigued because they were subjected to off-duty living conditions to which no Japanese pilot in 1942 was subjected. To wit: artillery fire from Japanese troops, naval gunfire from Japanese ships, pitched infantry battles fought within hundreds of meters of their bivouac area, Japanese snipers, infiltrators, and, for a good stretch of the campaign, half food rations, and unavailability of spare parts for planes (which in numerous instances led Henderson field F4F pilots to engage flying a.c. that would normally have been rejected as nonflightworthy). Furthermore, as many authors have noted, and as you could read (should you have the courage to do so), the coastwatchers and early radar were not sufficiently reliable to consistently provide early warning through the critical period through October 1942. That is why on days when the Japanese did not intend to launch a strike, Japanese pilots stood down and rested comfortably, while USN and USMC pilots remained on alert until the afternoon (because they could not know whether or not a Japanese strike was coming).

If truly the wildcat and Zero were equals in the air, given these numerous advantages it had, the Wildcat would have had a better ratio than 1 to 1 with the Zero.

That is an erroneous conclusion. Not only were the USN/USMC pilots at Henderson generally subjected to greater fatigue than Japanese pilots, but their mission was more complex as well. Japanese pilots had but one objective. Shoot down F4Fs. Allied pilots had two: fight through A6Ms to shoot down bombers. Interestingly, on days when the Japanese tried to feint with the bombers and attack with a "fighter sweep" they tended to be badly defeated.

Your 1 to 1 ratio actually works against you when looking at all the factors.

Only if one does not understand what circumstances produced these ratios and only if one has an incomplete account of said "factors."

If the situation was reversed and Zeros would have had these same advantages over Wildcats what would the score have been? You would have had to take your 1 to 1 and thrown it out the window after the first mission.

The situation was in fact reversed in 1943, with USN and USMC aviators flying up the slot, this time in better airplanes. The Japanese pilots at Rabaul and New Georgia were simply unable to approach 1:1 kill ratios against Allied planes, despite the fact that it was the US pilots logging the long pre-combat flights, and despite the fact that Japanese airwatchers were stationed on interim locations and despite Japanese radar at Rabaul.

[SuluSea]

Can any one [heavy emphasis on ONE!!!!] that says the Wildcat couldn't maneveur explain how Pug Sutherland got on Saburo Sakai's tail when Sakai had the jump on him after he shot down another Zero?  If Sutherland's guns didn't jam Sakai would have been toast.

Secrets of the Dead  "Dogfight over Guadalcanal" is a very good program for those who haven't viewed it.

Googled it....Enjoy

[mdiehl]

I'm getting the feeling I've stepped into a scrap between rivals. It's not accurate to say anyone suggested that a Wildcat "can't maneuver" any more than it is accurate to say that anyone suggested that a Wildcat was always as maneuverable or more maneuverable than a Zero.

This is like deja vous all over again.

I'm stepping out. Ike, if you won't read Lundstrom's volumes I see no point in further discussion. I, like you, once thought in a rather simplistic way that "The Wildcat was an inferior plane and less maneuverable than the Zero, only when USN pilots had learned by painful experience how to cope with the Zero could they win, etc, etc." It's at best an inaccurate and highly simplistic (to the point of nonutility) overgeneralization. That it continues to have traction despite the publication of several really high quality, thoughtful, detailed studies of the 1942 carrier battles and the Solomons campaign says more about the staying power of myths and urban legends than it does about the two aircraft.

[OG_Gleep]

As long as you're posting, you're increasing your tally.

Aye I know. No clue about rank, don't pay attention to post count. Was just saying it wasn't me keeping this one alive hehe.

I don't know if this helps anyone, I personally don't understand it.

[OG_Gleep]

Bah I can't resize it via edit. Or don't know how.

Can actually read it here.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attach ... arison.png

mdiehl -

Unfortunate. Enjoyed reading your arguments on the subject. Many others make similar arguments on many a different forum, and bring up additonal points to substatiate your position.

[SuluSea]

"Can't maneveur " was my poor choice of English. I don't think anyone who reads my posts will come away thinking I'm very well educated. Obviously if the plane couldn't maneveur it wouldn't be a fighter plane. I should have said "anyone who said the F4F couldn't dogfight" . Sorry for any confusion to anyone[&:].


Ditto on enjoying reading your talking points Mdiehl. I've learned much about the F4F from you. Thanks.

[Ike99]

Nothing stipulates that the evading zero only in effect 'seemed to be twisting and turning because it was damaged.

He dove down on a Zero ¨lined it up¨ and shot. Then, he says the Zero began twisting and turning. Was soon on fire and crashed. This is no example of either planes manueverability at high speed, low speed or any other speed. Again, I remind you, you claim to have all these examples of Wildcats out turning Zeros
at high speed but you have not given a single one.

You said Bauer was last seen by Voss doing a head on Pass against a Zero. That´s more in the line of ¨boom and zoom¨, not any example of out turning a Zero at high speed. The Wildcat simply did not have enough speed to take advantage of any flight characteristic weakness in the Zero at high speed. Too slow of a top speed and that mdiehl is a fact.

Are you not the same person who has been saying Wildcats can dog fight with Zeros and are as manuverable as Zeros for 2 pages now?

I have not seen anyone make that claim.

I have, You. You twist and turn more than a Zero ever did and at a better roll rate.

[:D]

You weren´t selling Wildcat manuverability and ability to dog fight with Zeros?

"When you encounter a zero, DOGFIGHT 'em!" He was of the opinion that a situationally alert F4F driver who kept his airspeed up could regularly beat a Zeke flown by anyone. And he definitely meant you could turn into the Zeke, roll with it, and flame it.¨

¨Empirically speaking, "Bauer's last fight" shows that an F4F could outmaneuver a Zero under the right circumstances, and the loss ratio of 1:1 seems to support the more general contention that the two a.c. were evenly matched.¨

¨I don't see how any objective person could claim that it was "suicide" to try to outmaneuver Zeroes.¨

¨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.¨

mdiehl, A Zero can out turn a F-15 at 100 mph, so ¨under the right circumstances¨ a Zero is more manuverable and can dog fight and win against an F-15 with guns only. That´s your cherry picking flight performances for you. Anyone can do it. It´s easy, and without the smoke and mirrors it really is the basis for your theories and your argument in a nutshell on Zero vs Wildcat.

The situation was in fact reversed in 1943, with USN and USMC aviators flying up the slot, this time in better airplanes. The Japanese pilots at Rabaul and New Georgia were simply unable to approach 1:1 kill ratios against Allied planes, despite the fact that it was the US pilots logging the long pre-combat flights, and despite the fact that Japanese airwatchers were stationed on interim locations and despite Japanese radar at Rabaul.

Trying to say I don´t understand the circumstances and draw incorrect conclusions in one section. Then in the next trying to compare the Zeros and Wildcats over Quadalacanal with Zeros and Hellcats over Rabaul just offers up more proof you really don´t have a firm understanding of the subject matter. That really, your simply parroting what you´ve read in these three books. Saying, ¨the situation was in fact reversed.¨ Not quite. I think perhaps it is you, not me, who need to expand your world in world renowned historians.

But we don´t agree and there it is.

[OG_Gleep]

Ike, word of advice, welcome or not. Hope you take it the way I intend it.

I debate like you IRL. This is not my subject at all, but even if it was..on the internet you have to soften it quite a good deal as a lot is lost in translation. I thought you defended your points very well. In fact, if armed with your info, its exactly how I'd attack to win IRL and often do.

Very easy to take things the wrong way over the internet, and while I recognized this and thought it was a safe assumtion thats how you attacked someones points IRL, it goes over real bad on the net.

My post here is a prime example of something that can go horribly wrong, but would be quite reasonable if we were sitting down having coffe and something I would normally avoid. Only take the risk of offending you because I honestly believed throughout you were debating the issue and not attackng the person.

[SuluSea]

Ike said.....
 

A Zero can out turn a F-15 at 100 mph, so ¨under the right circumstances¨ a Zero is more manuverable and can dog fight and win against an F-15 with guns only.

 
 
If the Zero could fight the F-15 to a standstill , 1-1 kill ratio then obviously the F-15 wouldn't be a better fighter plane than the Zero.
 
 
But again the notion is ludicrous and  you're cherry picking as many in this thread accuse you of doing.

[tocaff]

Ike you're doing drugs aren't you? To even say in jest that a Zero could fight an F-15 is nothing short of ridiculous. Imagine an F-15s air cannon shredding a Zero before the Zero even knew anything was in the sky.....Yep, your examples to back yourself become wilder and wilder all of the time. You are an intelligent person so why this nonsense?

I think that I too will go back to the green button as you've nothing important to say as you just love arguing with everyone for argument's sake.