WW II Planes

[Silavite]

In defense of the A6M, it was by far the best carrier-based fighter until the introduction of the F6F Hellcat. It had the best range of any single engine fighter of the war (the A6M2 did, at least), it had a respectable top speed (for the time) of 330 mph, an excellent rate of climb, outstanding agility, a bubble canopy (admittedly with framing), and good armament of two 20mm cannons and two 7.7mm machine guns. You could argue that the Seafire was better, and in terms of absolute flight performance in combat it was, but the poor range of the Seafire is almost crippling.

My personal favorite (right now) is either the F2G or the Fw 190 D. They both look stunning.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Silavite

[tater]

4 minutes ago, Silavite said:

In defense of the A6M, it was by far the best carrier-based fighter until the introduction of the F6F Hellcat. It had the best range of any single engine fighter of the war (the A6M2 did, at least), it had a respectable top speed (for the time) of 330 mph, an excellent rate of climb, outstanding agility, a bubble canopy (admittedly with framing), and good armament of two 20mm cannons and two 7.7mm machine guns. You could argue that the Seafire was better, and in terms of absolute flight performance in combat it was, but the poor range of the Seafire is almost crippling.

The Spitfire/Seafire was never a better carrier aircraft IMO (liquid cool aircraft and CV aircraft are mutually exclusive, IMO, far too fragile with nothing below but sharks).

As for the Zero, it was an excellent aircraft, but it was not even better than the F4F. The USN never had a poor kill/loss ratio vs the A6M. Lundstrom's First Team books go through every single combat though the end of 1942, and The F4F always ended up doing better than the A6M over a rolling average of engagements. Zeros could win some, but then they'd lose a little more than that in the next encounter.

I agree on all the specifics of the excellent qualities of the A6M, mind you, but a warplane exists in a context, and the Zero is frankly overrated. They did very well at the start of the war not because the aircraft was so great, but for reasons the US pioneered in both theaters: quantity has a quality all its own. They massed the Kido Butai, and put huge numbers of aircraft over the target, creating overwhelming superiority. They could have arrived over Malaya with biplanes in those kinds of numbers and they'd have swept the RAF away there. Survivability matters. For the IJN in particular, their design dogma wa so very, very wrong. They had a small number of excellent, but irreplaceable pilots. The USN had very good pilots, but their aircraft allowed them to make mistakes and live and learn. Them then dumping their radios (!) to save weight was another terrible, terrible mistake. Teamwork also matters as anyone lyon online with a wingman and comms knows, it turns swirling melees into rope a dope.

The F2G never saw combat, though. The Dora was great aircraft.

[Sgt Doomball]

33 minutes ago, Silavite said:

In defense of the A6M, it was by far the best carrier-based fighter until the introduction of the F6F Hellcat. It had the best range of any single engine fighter of the war (the A6M2 did, at least), it had a respectable top speed (for the time) of 330 mph, an excellent rate of climb, outstanding agility, a bubble canopy (admittedly with framing), and good armament of two 20mm cannons and two 7.7mm machine guns. You could argue that the Seafire was better, and in terms of absolute flight performance in combat it was, but the poor range of the Seafire is almost crippling.

My personal favorite (right now) is either the F2G or the Fw 190 D. They both look stunning.

 

Your top picture is an F-4F Corsair

[tater]

16 minutes ago, Sgt Doomball said:

Your top picture is an F-4F Corsair

F4F is the Wildcat. Corsair is the F4U. The F2G was an F4U license built by Goodyear ("G"), just as the FM-1 and FM-2 were license built Wildcats.

The image is of an F2G, the exhaust stack, and fuselage/cowl interaction are very different than F4Us. Not to mention the canopy, lol.

(also, the aircraft is pictured in post WW2 markings (the red stripe in the stars and bars).

Edited February 28, 2017 by tater

[Silavite]

46 minutes ago, tater said:

The Spitfire/Seafire was never a better carrier aircraft IMO (liquid cool aircraft and CV aircraft are mutually exclusive, IMO, far too fragile with nothing below but sharks).

As for the Zero, it was an excellent aircraft, but it was not even better than the F4F. The USN never had a poor kill/loss ratio vs the A6M. Lundstrom's First Team books go through every single combat though the end of 1942, and The F4F always ended up doing better than the A6M over a rolling average of engagements. Zeros could win some, but then they'd lose a little more than that in the next encounter.

I agree on all the specifics of the excellent qualities of the A6M, mind you, but a warplane exists in a context, and the Zero is frankly overrated. They did very well at the start of the war not because the aircraft was so great, but for reasons the US pioneered in both theaters: quantity has a quality all its own. They massed the Kido Butai, and put huge numbers of aircraft over the target, creating overwhelming superiority. They could have arrived over Malaya with biplanes in those kinds of numbers and they'd have swept the RAF away there. Survivability matters. For the IJN in particular, their design dogma wa so very, very wrong. They had a small number of excellent, but irreplaceable pilots. The USN had very good pilots, but their aircraft allowed them to make mistakes and live and learn. Them then dumping their radios (!) to save weight was another terrible, terrible mistake. Teamwork also matters as anyone lyon online with a wingman and comms knows, it turns swirling melees into rope a dope.

I'll disagree about the Zero being worse than the F4F because the Wildcat was lacking in terms of flight performance (relatively speaking).

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3407

Admittedly the earliest model of Zero displayed here is the A6M3, not the A6M2. The A6M2 would have a lower critical altitude (and thus a lower top speed), but possessed better range and agility.

That is the F4F-3 with four rather than six machine guns, and it is a land version without arresting gear at that. Despite that, the only areas in which it can claim superiority are durability and speed at low altitude.

Another factor in favor of the Zero is that the Japanese standard for test data was military rather than war emergency power, which further favors the Zero.

 

All that technical stuff being said, I will admit that what you say about numbers and the initial Japanese design philosophy is right. Overwhelming local superiority allowed Japan to steamroll over scattered and badly organized resistance at the start of the war regardless of equipment. The same thing happened in the Soviet Union during Barbarossa. However, Japan put all their eggs in the basket hoping for a quick war (and in the beginning, it looked like it would go that way), and didn't invest in things like pilot training programs or anti-submarine warfare. Then again, considering the overwhelming economic superiority of the United States, it have been even more foolish to try and fight a long war, but I digress. I still think that, although durability matters, it pales in comparison to other factors like doctrine, pilot training, numbers, and even flight performance. The Spitfire was, relative to a P-47 or Fw 190, a very fragile aircraft, yet, it proved to be a potent interceptor.

Another problem was simply the culture of the Japanese military which did almost nothing to support teamwork, while the USAAF and USN made teamwork the centerpiece of fighter aircraft tactics. Dumping radios was a symptom of this.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Silavite
teamwork

[tater]

@Silavite, it WAS superior. Kills vs losses. It won, the Zero lost. Spreadsheets don't matter for fighter planes, combat matters. The area I claim the F4F was superior is in actual combat, and it was. The best of the Japanese pilots did well in the type, but particularly later in the war (and I even mean late 1942/early '43 here), the pilots had virtually no chance to make any mistakes. F4F/FM-2s routinely landed with hundreds of holes in them, including 20mm. That was never true of Zeros where their armor was "don't get hit."

So tables don't matter unless they are tables of combats showing who won a given fight. There is a problem with those, however (Lundstrom does a great job here checking every combat with all available records on both sides). All air forces in the war exaggerated kills. The Japanese were true masters of this, however. There are many engagements where they claimed more aircraft than they actually encountered as killed, and the US records show only damaged aircraft. USN pilots overstated kills by a very small factor compared to other services worldwide as it turns out, the Marines were slightly worse than the USN, and the USAAF was worse than the Marines. All were substantially better than the Japanese (both the IJA and IJN).

BTW, the F4F-3 only had 4 guns, but this was in fact preferred by pilots, and judged more effective, which is why the majority of Wildcats were 4 gun versions (the FM-2s). They carried more ammo, because they had less gun mass, and they had a much longer firing time. 

Look at the post Coral Sea tactics attributed to Thatch. A wing pair would weave back and forth. If a Zero gets on the tail of one aircraft in the element, the second gets a snapshot at him either head on, or at some decent deflection. They fire, as they have loads of ammo (even in the -4 they turned the outer 2 guns off, and used them for the trip home as reserves). Almost any hit takes out the Zero. This tactic depends on the fact that the armor behind the pilot would even protect him from 20mm fire (which it did). The fact that the Zero is better on paper in almost every respect (it certainly was!) doesn't matter. If you had to fly either an F4F or an A6M2/3 over the Slot in late '42, you'd be crazy to pick the Zero.

 

EDIT: I'd add that I think the 0.50s were a far superior armament to the 20mm guns used on the Zeros. At least the early/mid war models had a very low velocity 20mm gun, and they had to get very, very close to hit with it. The .30 cal guns were nearly worthless vs US aircraft (maybe of they had 8 like early RAF aircraft, well harmonized that would be OK). The Japanese got the wrong idea when Zero attacked the Philippines. The P-40s that had been delivered had some serious issues, and many of the guns didn't work. On top of that, their belting was mostly ball ammo. Even just a few months into the war, the US changed to very API heavy belting. As close to 100% as they could manage with supplies. All this typing s from memory, but it ammo issues might have been corrected after the Koga Zero was examined (so after Midway).

Edited February 28, 2017 by tater

[Silavite]

52 minutes ago, tater said:

@Silavite, it WAS superior. Kills vs losses. It won, the Zero lost. Spreadsheets don't matter for fighter planes, combat matters. The area I claim the F4F was superior is in actual combat, and it was. The best of the Japanese pilots did well in the type, but particularly later in the war (and I even mean late 1942/early '43 here), the pilots had virtually no chance to make any mistakes. F4F/FM-2s routinely landed with hundreds of holes in them, including 20mm. That was never true of Zeros where their armor was "don't get hit."

So tables don't matter unless they are tables of combats showing who one a given fight. There is a problem with those, however (Lundstrom does a great job here checking every combat with all available records on both sides). All air forces in the war exaggerated kills. The Japanese were true masters of this, however. There are many engagements where they claimed more aircraft than they actually encountered as killed, and the US records show only damaged aircraft. USN pilots overstated kills by a very small factor compared to other series worldwide as it turns out, the Marines were slightly worse than the USN, and the USAAF was worse than the Marines. All were substantially better than the Japanese (both the IJA and IJN).

BTW, the F4F-3 only had 4 guns, but this was in fact preferred by pilots, and judged more effective, which is why the majority of Wildcats were 4 gun versions (the FM-2s). They carried more ammo, because they had less gun mass, and they had a much longer firing time. 

Look at the post Coral Sea tactics attributed to Thatch. A wing pair would weave back and forth. If a Zero gets on the tail of one aircraft in the element, the second gets a snapshot at him either head on, or at some decent deflection. They fire, as they have loads of ammo (even in the -4 they turned the outer 2 guns off, and used them for the trip home as reserves). Almost any hit takes out the Zero. This tactic depends on the fact that the armor behind the pilot would even protect him from 20mm fire (which it did). The fact that the Zero is better on paper in almost every respect (it certainly was!) doesn't matter. If you had to fly either an F4F or an A6M2/3 over the Slot in late '42, you'd be crazy to pick the Zero.

I will fully agree that, in context and reality, the Wildcat won over the Zero. I simply feel that, removed from context, the Zero is the better aircraft. The Wildcat won much more due to tactics and pilot training than due to its own qualities. In other words, I think that if you swapped the Zero and Wildcat between factions, the outcome would not change, and the Japanese would not gain any sort of advantage. The same could be said about the Defense of the Reich. If you swapped the P-38, P-51, and P-47 for the Fw 190 and Bf 109 (ignoring range, of course), the outcome would not have really changed.

Also, about armament, I forgot about the velocity, yeah. The original Type 99-1 was a copy of the MG FF and thus suffered from meh rate of fire, junk muzzle velocity, and a limited drum fed magazine (seriously, why did no one other than the Soviets [and even then it was just a happy coincidence because the ShVAK was originally a machine gun] decide to develop belt feed mechanisms BEFORE the war? This happened with ALL the Oerlikon FF variants...). The Type 99-2 had a fine muzzle velocity but still suffered from all the other problems. It wasn't until the Ho-5 (which was basically a scaled up Browning) that Japan had a decent 20mm cannon.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Silavite
adding my belt fed rant

[LN400]

Not gonna go into a fully fledged debate over which was better but I was really under the impression that the very reason, the exact reason, the US developed both the Hellcat and the Corsair was that they had nothing, that would include the Wildcat, that could outperform the Zero. The Wildcat was outmatched in engine power over and over again where the Zero would go vertical with the Wildcat chasing, the Wildcat stalled first, fell back down while the Zero, still having the energy, turned and shot down the WIldcat. The Hellcat was a beefed up Wildcat with a more powerful engine but as such, it was a different plane than the WIldcat. Only with the Hellcat did the US have the engine power to stay on the Zero's tail during vertical, where the Zero would be the first to stall.

Feel free to throw historical accuracy at me here if I'm totally off.

[tater]

5 hours ago, LN400 said:

Not gonna go into a fully fledged debate over which was better but I was really under the impression that the very reason, the exact reason, the US developed both the Hellcat and the Corsair was that they had nothing, that would include the Wildcat, that could outperform the Zero. The Wildcat was outmatched in engine power over and over again where the Zero would go vertical with the Wildcat chasing, the Wildcat stalled first, fell back down while the Zero, still having the energy, turned and shot down the WIldcat. The Hellcat was a beefed up Wildcat with a more powerful engine but as such, it was a different plane than the WIldcat. Only with the Hellcat did the US have the engine power to stay on the Zero's tail during vertical, where the Zero would be the first to stall.

Feel free to throw historical accuracy at me here if I'm totally off.

The first F6F flew in June, 1942. The Koga Zero was recovered after that, and not restored and flown until the F6F design was already gelled. The spec of both (F6F and F4U) was out before the war started, and before BuAer even knew the Zero was a thing. They were built to beat the F4F in every area, and the F4F-3 was very evenly matched with the Zero, so its replacement was better than the Zero.

Regarding the Wildcat swapped wit the Zero, I think the Japanese would have then done better---because they would not have lost nearly as many pilots. The facts of the F4F as an aircraft allowed the US pilots to get better with experience, an option not really available to the Japanese. The Zero was awesome, notable range and rate of clime. That said, I think no rational person would want to trust their life to a Zero vs an F4F (of course the F4F guys also bothered to wear their parachutes, unlike the IJN pilots who left them home to sabe weight under the notion that this would make their weapon that much better due to lower wing loading (partially why they dumped their not so good anyway radios).

[LN400]

One thing is absolutely certain and that is, by the start of 1942, the US were very much aware of the Zero and that it was a "thing". it is true that work was underway to replace the Wildcat and that work started in the late 1930's but the prototype Hellcat didn't appear until 1941/1942.

As for losses, there are more factors than the plane. There is long term national defence strategies, there are military strategies regarding deployment and use of hardware, good decisions, poor decisions, there is pilot training and pilot training quality, number of pilots, service quality down to how good the chow is in the mess hall. The reason Germany lost so many fighters to the p51 and 38s was not that these planes were so superior but rather that the competent german pilots were mostly dead by 1944 and replaced by rookies who could barely take off after 1 hour ground school. All that in turn largely  due to the monumental incompetence of Goring. The German planes were not particularly inferior to the Mustang or Lightning. Same about the Zero VS US planes until summer 1942.

Edited February 28, 2017 by LN400

[Silavite]

6 hours ago, LN400 said:

One thing is absolutely certain and that is, by the start of 1942, the US were very much aware of the Zero and that it was a "thing". it is true that work was underway to replace the Wildcat and that work started in the late 1930's but the prototype Hellcat didn't appear until 1941/1942.

As for losses, there are more factors than the plane. There is long term national defence strategies, there are military strategies regarding deployment and use of hardware, good decisions, poor decisions, there is pilot training and pilot training quality, number of pilots, service quality down to how good the chow is in the mess hall. The reason Germany lost so many fighters to the p51 and 38s was not that these planes were so superior but rather that the competent german pilots were mostly dead by 1944 and replaced by rookies who could barely take off after 1 hour ground school. All that in turn largely  due to the monumental incompetence of Goring. The German planes were not particularly inferior to the Mustang or Lightning. Same about the Zero VS US planes until summer 1942.

I think there is not much disagreement that the aircraft type flown is a small piece of the mosaic picture that is an air force's effectiveness. 

@tater Acknowledged these other factors.

Quote

They [Japan] did very well at the start of the war not because the aircraft [A6M] was so great, but for reasons the US pioneered in both theaters: quantity has a quality all its own. They massed the Kido Butai, and put huge numbers of aircraft over the target, creating overwhelming superiority. They could have arrived over Malaya with biplanes in those kinds of numbers and they'd have swept the RAF away there. [...] Teamwork also matters as anyone lyon online with a wingman and comms knows, it turns swirling melees into rope a dope.

As did I.

Quote

I still think that, although durability matters, it pales in comparison to other factors like doctrine, pilot training, numbers, and even flight performance.

 

@tater I still feel like you are saying that durability is survivability. Superior rate of climb or top speed allowed pilots to engage when they had the advantage and disengage when they did not. Durability is certainly helpful within a furball, but why would one be in a furball, which is hardly an advantageous situation, when you can simply disengage and fight later on your own terms? Between the F4F and the A6M, the Zero could dictate the terms of engagement much more readily (much better rate of climb across the map, slightly faster except on the deck) than the Wildcat (needed to have altitude and dive away, which itself threw away energy and could open oneself up to further bounces). Durability does indeed help in the process of disengagement, but durability does not enable the pilot to disengage. That is why I would still favor the Zero.

[tater]

14 minutes ago, Silavite said:

@tater I still feel like you are saying that durability is survivability. Superior rate of climb or top speed allowed pilots to engage when they had the advantage and disengage when they did not. Durability is certainly helpful within a furball, but why would one be in a furball, which is hardly an advantageous situation, when you can simply disengage and fight later on your own terms? Between the F4F and the A6M, the Zero could dictate the terms of engagement much more readily (much better rate of climb across the map, slightly faster except on the deck) than the Wildcat (needed to have altitude and dive away, which itself threw away energy and could open oneself up to further bounces). Durability does indeed help in the process of disengagement, but durability does not enable the pilot to disengage. That is why I would still favor the Zero.

It WAS survivability in the case of the Zero. Like I said, they all got shot down pretty much. On paper, they look almost universally better, but in actual combat, they never managed to beat the F4F.

In any real life situation, particularly early in the war when the Zero faced an even fight vs the F4F (it was outmatched by everything later), you'd have a gaggle of Zekes vs a team of Wildcats. The F4Fs were flying together, using teamwork. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by tater

[linuxgurugamer]

14 hours ago, tater said:

It WAS survivability in the case of the Zero. Like I said, they all got shot down pretty much. On paper, they look almost universally better, but in actual combat, they never managed to beat the F4F.

In any real life situation, particularly early in the war when the Zero faced an even fight vs the F4F (it was outmatched by everything later), you'd have a gaggle of Zekes vs a team of Wildcats. The F4Fs were flying together, using teamwork. 

American fighter doctrine was vastly different than Japanese or German doctrine.  Japanese (and I believe Germans) tended to fight on their own, American (I don't know anything about British or other allies) always worked together.  So, even if, for example, a Zero was a better dogfighter than a P-38, the American doctrine dictated that the fighters always were in groups of at least two, and also emphasized the strengths of their planes over the enemy, which would lead the Zero to being shot down by the 2nd if not the 1st p-38.  Substitute any other american plane, they all worked together in groups.

Also, the US rotated pilots home, to become trainers, etc.  So while the US didn't get any aces with more than 40 confirmed kills, we had a lot more aces, etc.

One more point:  The US had much stricter standards for a confirmed kill than either German or Japanese pilots, so when, for example, the american pilot saw a plane in flames enter the clouds, it was listed as a probable, while German and Japs would list that as a kill.

[GDJ]

I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I had to defend my choice. 

What was the purpose of this thread anyways?

[razark]

10 minutes ago, GDJ said:

I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I had to defend my choice.

This is the internet!

You can't just sit around here, simply having your own opinion!  You have to argue why you're right and everyone else is wrong!

[Sgt Doomball]

I am the OP. The reason was for everyone to talk freely about their favorite WWII fighter plane and to discuss the topic freely.

Spoiler

P.S. curse you Grammarly.

[Norcalplanner]

Gotta go with the P-51, although the F-6F was a close second. Range of the P-51, combined with the high altitude combat capability, was game changing. Peace through superior aerodynamics and fuel economy FTW.

[TheSaint]

18 hours ago, razark said:

This is the internet!

You can't just sit around here, simply having your own opinion!  You have to argue why you're right and everyone else is wrong!

NO! This is completely incorrect!

Edited March 2, 2017 by TheSaint

[Silavite]

On 3/1/2017 at 6:29 PM, razark said:

This is the internet!

You can't just sit around here, simply having your own opinion!  You have to argue why you're right and everyone else is wrong!

I saw an opportunity for a debate about a subject that I am really passionate about, so I jumped at the chance. I ended up with some new knowledge and respect for an airplane that I previously thought had almost no redeeming qualities, so I'd say that it was well worth it.

[Spacetraindriver]

On 3/1/2017 at 4:49 PM, Sgt Doomball said:

I am the OP. The reason was for everyone to talk freely about their favorite WWII fighter plane and to discuss the topic freely.

  Reveal hidden contents

P.S. curse you Grammarly.

Then can't the title be : "WWII Fighter Planes" ? I first clicked on this thread so I can express my admiration of Bomber Aircraft and the use of Airships during the war.  Also: Where's the P-40? I was gonna also gonna say the 262 and Meteor, but I'm suspecting you want it pure prop.

[Sgt Doomball]

I have edited the topic to include all people

Spoiler

P.S. curse you Grammarly.

[razark]

31 minutes ago, Sgt Doomball said:

I have edited the topic to include all people

What, no C-47?

 

 

[Sgt Doomball]

Read the hidden content and thank you.