Warbirds Thread

[Vargas Fan]

True.I read memories of some japaneese pilot who was send in it against B.29.Some died for nothing,others wasted fuel and ammo.And it would be the same against most bombers,too.
Basically,good for digfight,but had small chances for schoot anything.In Malayan campaign they win all fights,but schoot relatively few planes becouse of that.

Even in dogfights, against US and British fighters it didn't stand much chance, some aircraft like the Buffalo for instance it could outturn, but two rifle calibre MG's wont do much, ditto with Hurricanes and P40's. I don't know if the Oscar ever had an armaments upgrade though.

According to wiki a version was built with twin 20mm cannons, but only two prototypes were built.

 

[ATP]

Even in dogfights, against US and British fighters it didn't stand much chance, some aircraft like the Buffalo for instance it could outturn, but two rifle calibre MG's wont do much, ditto with Hurricanes and P40's. I don't know if the Oscar ever had an armaments upgrade though.

According to wiki a version was built with twin 20mm cannons, but only two prototypes were built.

Ki43 get one HMG replaced with 0.50,Ki 43c both HMG were replaced with it.

 

[bintananth]

Even in dogfights, against US and British fighters it didn't stand much chance, some aircraft like the Buffalo for instance it could outturn, but two rifle calibre MG's wont do much, ditto with Hurricanes and P40's. I don't know if the Oscar ever had an armaments upgrade though.

According to wiki a version was built with twin 20mm cannons, but only two prototypes were built.

The Japanese designed their fighters to be maneuverable above all else and the pilots were rigoursly trained with a high wash-out rate to be very good in a turning fight.

This would have worked better if their engines weren't lacking in horsepower when compared to Allied powerplants.

They weren't bad planes but a lot needed to be sacrificed (pilot armour and self-sealing fuel tanks are two very obvious things) to get the performance they were aiming for.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The Japanese designed their fighters to be maneuverable above all else and the pilots were rigoursly trained with a high wash-out rate to be very good in a turning fight.

This would have worked better if their engines weren't lacking in horsepower when compared to Allied powerplants.

They weren't bad planes but a lot needed to be sacrificed (pilot armour and self-sealing fuel tanks are two very obvious things) to get the performance they were aiming for.

It's unfortunate that US planes were the direct counter for Japanese planes.
Powerful engines, fast, heavy armor, lots of .50 MGs.

Zeroes would often run out of ammo when fighting Hellcats and Corsairs.

 

[bintananth]

It's unfortunate that US planes were the direct counter for Japanese planes.
Powerful engines, fast, heavy armor, lots of .50 MGs.

Zeroes would often run out of ammo when fighting Hellcats and Corsairs.

Interestingly: the Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 and Mitsubishi A6M2 were similarly armed (two machine guns, two 20mm cannons) but vastly different in terms of performance.

The Bf109E-3 was short ranged, quick, tough, a small target (32'-4.5" wingspan, 28'-8" length) and surprisingly light (5,740lbs max take-off).

The A6M2 was very long ranged, turned on a dime, had much larger wings (39'-4"), a much greater payload (~2,460lbs max vs. ~1,060lbs max, including fuel), several hundred pounds heavier than Bf109E when fully loaded despite being roughly 1,000lbs lighter when dry, and designed for carrier use.

All of that came at prices the US and British did not have to pay when coming up with counters to either. "We'll just drown you in gunfire" because "we have access to better fuels" meant the Western Allies didn't have to make the same kinds of design compromises the Axis did.

 

[Zachowon]

The US doctrine was bigger engine and more guns.

 

[bintananth]

The US doctrine was bigger engine and more guns.

Along with "don't get into a dogfight if you can avoid it."

The Hawker Hurricane Mk.I proved pretty definitely during early encounters with Italian biplanes that maneuverability doesn't matter much when a single pass by something much faster with at least four times the firepower* can shred you.

* 8 wing-mounted guns vs. 2 cowl-mounted guns firing through the propeller hub.

 

[Zachowon]

Well yeah, the whole thing the US did was Boom and Zoom

 

[bintananth]

Well yeah, the whole thing the US did was Boom and Zoom

Which the USN couldn't really do against the Zero until F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs were available in numbers sometime in 1943. Midway took place in early June 1942 and the F4F Wildcats the USN had more than held their own until better planes were available.

EDIT: The US didn't have any confirmable proof of a Zero's capabilities or weaknesses until after one which crashed in Alaska was recovered, brought back to flying condition, and tested.

 

[Zachowon]

Which the USN couldn't really do against the Zero until F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs were available in numbers sometime in 1943. Midway took place in early June 1942 and the F4F Wildcats the USN had more than held their own until better planes were available.

Because they could still boom and zoom. Just not as good

 

[bintananth]

Because they could still boom and zoom. Just not as good

It was a Thatch Weave. It wasn't Boom and Zoom. With the former one of the planes acts as a decoy. With the latter there are no decoys.

 

[Zachowon]

It was a Thatch Weave. It wasn't Boom and Zoom. With the former one of the planes acts as a decoy. With the latter there are no decoys.

Right right.
I forgot Thatch was an aviation genius against the Japanese

 

[bintananth]

Right right.
I forgot Thatch was an aviation genius against the Japanese

If you were to ask an aviation buff "which USN aircraft stopped the Zero" very few, if any, would say "The Wildcat".

Similarly, the answer you'd get to "which British fighter shot down more German bombers than any other during the Battle of Britain?" from a WWII history buff the correct answer, the Hawker Hurricane, is almost never the answer they'll give you.

 

[Zachowon]

If you were to ask an aviation buff "which USN aircraft stopped the Zero" very few, if any, would say "The Wildcat".

Similarly, the answer you'd get to "which British fighter shot down more German bombers than any other during the Battle of Britain?" from a WWII history buff the correct answer, the Hawker Hurricane, is almost never the answer they'll give you.

The wildcat was good enough for what we had.

 

[bintananth]

The wildcat was good enough for what we had.

With the right tactics and strategy it was better than a Zero or Bf109E despite being slower and outgunned by either.

Even the much maligned Brewster Buffalo got its chance to shine, in Finnish hands during WWII, when the Finns recorded a 32:1 kill:loss ratio against the Soviets using them in conditions an aircraft designed carrier use and ineffective as a carrier aircraft was not designed to handle.

They were excellent and called "Taivaan Helmi" ("Pearl of the Skies") to reflect this.

The Finns even built and have on display in a museum a prototype copy/derivative largely made of wood with fixed landing gear instead of the heavy and durable metal parts too heavy for the USN they got from the US the orginal had that they couldn't repair, replace, or replicate during WWII.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The thing about the Zero was that while it had impressive turning agility, said agility only existed at low to medium speed. At high speed, it would tear itself apart if it tried to turn hard. Even before the Hellcat and Corsair rendered the Zero a totally obsolete deathtrap, Wildcats using the right tactics had very favorable odds against the vaunted Zero. The Thatch Weave was one of those tactics, but hardly the only one; a Wildcat could reliably beat a Zero even in a one-on-one dogfight by pressing aggressive high-speed maneuvers.

 

[bintananth]

The thing about the Zero was that while it had impressive turning agility, said agility only existed at low to medium speed. At high speed, it would tear itself apart if it tried to turn hard. Even before the Hellcat and Corsair rendered the Zero a totally obsolete deathtrap, Wildcats using the right tactics had very favorable odds against the vaunted Zero. The Thatch Weave was one of those tactics, but hardly the only one; a Wildcat could reliably beat a Zero even in a one-on-one dogfight by pressing aggressive high-speed maneuvers.

Blame that on Japanese pilot training methods.

Pre-Midway Japanese pilots absolutely outclassed American pilots. Post-Midway most didn't because the US pulled ace pilots off the front lines to instruct newbies while the Japanese kept most of their ace pilots together on the front lines until they died.

Saburō Sakai, one of the few Japanese fighter pilots to survive all of WWII, did not have nice things to say about Japanese leadership during WWII.

 

[BF110C4]

Part of it was due to tactics, another part of the balance was a question of relative advantages. During Midway when the Tatch Weave was used for the first time the japanese had no practical counter to it and the lack of radios meant that the fighters couldn't coordinate to defeat both flanks of the weave in detail or to detach just part of the CAP while the other actually act as high guard and start thinking of measures against it.

Later during the attacks on the Cactus Air Force the Wildcats had the huge advantage of fighting against japanese pilots at the very edge of their operational range, coming from a predictable direction, with very limited time over the island and still limited ability to communicate with their wingmen, as the war progressed the japanese naval and ground units suffered operational exhaustion as well, degrading the performance of both planes and pilots. On the other hand the early warning of a raid by australian watchers in nearby islands meant that the american planes had the time to get to optimal alttitude and vector themselves on the flank of their formations, fresh reinforcements and ample spare parts kept fighters at peak performance even in the primitive conditions of Henderson Field and tactics evolved constantly both in the island and from stateside.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I will note that the F4F Wildcat had a Kill/Loss ratio of 5.9 to 1. Meaning that for every Wildcat lost in action, they shot down almost 6 enemies.

And contrary to Bintanarth, the primary tactic for Wildcats was always 'boom and zoom', the Thach Weave was actually only used on a very limited basis, despite its fame, and was intended for situations in which the Wildcat was caught at too low of speed and altitude to properly boom and zoom. A Wildcat in a dive was faster and conserved energy better than a Zero. Ideally, a Wildcat pilot should attempt to avoid a turning engagement with a Zero and keep the engagement to one of 'boom and zoom'.

 

[Zachowon]

I will note that the F4F Wildcat had a Kill/Loss ratio of 5.9 to 1. Meaning that for every Wildcat lost in action, they shot down almost 6 enemies.

And contrary to Bintanarth, the primary tactic for Wildcats was always 'boom and zoom', the Thach Weave was actually only used on a very limited basis, despite its fame, and was intended for situations in which the Wildcat was caught at too low of speed and altitude to properly boom and zoom. A Wildcat in a dive was faster and conserved energy better than a Zero. Ideally, a Wildcat pilot should attempt to avoid a turning engagement with a Zero and keep the engagement to one of 'boom and zoom'.

Boom and Zoom was the MAIN American strategy used for Aircraft