Corsair vs Zero
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, of course I agree with everything you wrote. But what does it exactly mean that I am "in a very bad position"? Because if "the other guy is aware of me" is sufficient to be "in a very bad position", then maybe I'm not in a superior plane?
Teamwork is OP. Of course I know that, but both sides can play this game, and until it is shown to me that teamwork in a "fastplane" is more OP than in a "lightplane", then I consider it a non-issue.
Bakters,
What is OP?
A bad position is one in which you are not favored to win. You are correct in your understanding on aware, bad position, and superior plane.
Team work even in WW2 was effective. Unfortunately it's not talked about much on the History Channel because it's all about the shooter, not the shooters team / wingman. If you put two Eagle Drivers in a pair of Mustangs, got them comfortable with what it could or couldn't do, and threw them back in time to the "Big One", they would do very well in my opine. They would use formations similar to what the Germans flew, but would be much more flexible with passing the formation tactical leadership back and forth to allow the guy with the more favorable position to employ without fear of hitting or frating his wingman.
Cheers,
Biff
What is OP?
A bad position is one in which you are not favored to win. You are correct in your understanding on aware, bad position, and superior plane.
Team work even in WW2 was effective. Unfortunately it's not talked about much on the History Channel because it's all about the shooter, not the shooters team / wingman. If you put two Eagle Drivers in a pair of Mustangs, got them comfortable with what it could or couldn't do, and threw them back in time to the "Big One", they would do very well in my opine. They would use formations similar to what the Germans flew, but would be much more flexible with passing the formation tactical leadership back and forth to allow the guy with the more favorable position to employ without fear of hitting or frating his wingman.
Cheers,
Biff
We'd really have to see a recording of your fight to give specifics. If you're in a faster, better-rolling aircraft, bouncing an enemy, and still being killed, you're definitely doing something wrong.
I can't say as to what without far more detail.
Without knowing your starting point there are a hundred variables.
Edit for Biff:
OP = Over Powered. Generally from the video gaming community meaning something is very good in the game. In this case used as hyperbole.
I can't say as to what without far more detail.
Without knowing your starting point there are a hundred variables.
Edit for Biff:
OP = Over Powered. Generally from the video gaming community meaning something is very good in the game. In this case used as hyperbole.
Last edited:
I really do think you have forgotten what "sim" is short for, "defeat" in the real situation means you possibly/probably die depending on where you are. Running means you are still alive in an armed aircraft and can look to get into a situation of advantage later on that or another day.
I'm not being killed, I just can't get a shot at the Zero without giving him a chance to shoot back. As I wrote before, all I can do is bounce him, and abort when he turns toward me. Then I extend while guessing all the time where exactly he might be and what he decided to do. If he follows me, I need to extend further, if he decided to go elsewhere I should turn around in the vertical and bounce him again.
Seems easy, if the opponent does not climb toward me, which he should do. If he does, I can't bounce him from above after my turn-around, so I lose my energy advantage. The only way I can recover my energy advantage is when I'm in a better climbing plane, not just in a faster plane.
I hope it's clear enough. Sorry, but I don't feel like learning how to record game footage just to show my mediocre skills.
Huge red flag here. Always keep sight of your opponent. If you're guessing where he is - he has the upper hand.
Without more information my first guess is that you're underestimating his energy state before your bounce, or not attacking with enough of an energy advantage yourself.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even the fastest, most heavily armed fighter in WWII (the Me262) would use their superior climbing ability to get away from the large numbers of the Allied escorts. To do otherwise was foolish. In the "olden days", a Knight would certainly stand his ground if challenged by another Knight - if the conditions dictated. But if that Knight looked around and saw that he was standing alone and the other Knight was approaching with a line of landsknechts (footmen), you can be sure that he would take to option to depart. There is no dishonor or cowardice in "turning tail" unless you committed to the duel (or tilt) in a verbal or written agreement (according to the code of chivalry) in the company of witness...it's called self preservation.
And the A6M was indeed a phenominal aircraft, but as the war progressed, the A6M was simply being outclassed. The newer, more powerful IJN or IJA types were being flown by the aces or experienced pilots and the A6M was being relegated to the junior and "FNG" pilots. The bottom line is, that the A6M was not a mysterious beast with mythical powers, it could be beaten by the F4F and even the SBD, both of which were a great deal behind the F6F in performance.
Years ago, when I flew SIMs, we used to keep flags, markers and icons off (full switch realism) - spins, flutter, blackout/redout, full engine management/overheat, accurate landing/takeoff, limited fuel and weather all turned on. That offered a fairly close approximation of the real deal...but was still far from the real deal, because it's a SIM.
Sure. How am I supposed to do it in a Corsair?
How am I supposed to gain the energy advantage in a plane which climbs worse? If the other guy is doing his job, he will climb at his best speed while he follows me extending. He sees what I'm doing, while I'm guessing most of the time.
That's exactly what I am trying to figure out here. Was it really outclassed? As a carrier born fighter? So which fighter was so obviously superior? Hellcats couldn't match it for range and ease of operation, Corsairs were even worse in this role, at least early on. But both were obviously better at air combat, were they not?
Actually, it seems to me they were not obviously better at it...
I use the same game. There are better ones for a specific period and a few chosen planes, but with all the patches the old IL2 is the most versatile and the richest environment still.
The pluses of Hellcat vs. Zero: raw speed, durability (overall; plus particulary protection of fuel tanks that no Zero had, ever), folding wings (the CV can store more of them), weaponry equaly suited for attack on enemy fighters and bombers in the Pacific. The range of the Hellcat can be increased when having 3 drop tanks, so I don't believe the Zero had the edge here. Hellcat was equally well suited for novice and veteran pilots, there were no vices in handling. Speed was also important, the Allies have had bombers in service that Zero had problems catching.
So I'd say Hellcat was obviously better, the Corsair was still a bit better as a carrier aircraft after minor chages.
So I'd say Hellcat was obviously better, the Corsair was still a bit better as a carrier aircraft after minor chages.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In 1940, the A6M was a world-beater. Add to the A6M's performance, the fact that they were piloted by combat experienced pilots and the USN and USAAC had their hands full with the aircraft in service at the start of the war for the U.S.
Towards the latter stages of the war, the A6M hadn't improved much, in order to stay ahead of the U.S.'s development and even though the A6M had great range, the U.S. had carriers that were closing in on Japan proper, so range wasn't a necessity. The A6M had a max. speed of a little over 330 mph (533kph) at medium altitudes while the F6F had a max. speed of 390mph (629kph) within the same altitudes. Compare the F6F's rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) to the A6M's: 3,100 ft/min (15.7 m/s) and you can see that the Zero's "glory days" had been eclipsed. Toss in the F4U's numbers: 416mph (670kph) and a rate of climb of 3,000 ft/min (which increased to 3,500 ft/min under boost) and you can see that the Zero was in serious trouble. Also factor in that a short burst of .50s from the Hellcat or the Corsair would shred the Zero.
Where the U.S. fighters like the F6F, P-51 and F4U ran into trouble, was with Japanese types like the KI-84, KI-100 and the N1K
Perhaps you'd enjoy looking at this section of the forum...lots of good stuff in there: IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge
Last edited:
I don't know what was the exact combat radius of a Hellcat. The numbers in Wikipedia made no sense to me, and actually there was a discussion on them and someone provided a (dead now) link to navy history page which supposedly showed the Hellcat to have a combat radius of just 310 nm. Could be true, if ferry range is supposed to be 1300-ish nm with all droptanks and no allowance for combat. Anyway, A6M2 had better range, later models maybe not so much.
A6M2 mod 21 had folding wingtips, while a Hellcat was longer by 1m. Which one packed better? I don't think there is much between them here.
Edit: I didn't check how it was done, and those folding wingtips didn't buy you much space. Anyway, they packed their planes tightly by overlapping their wings. http://http://www.wwiitimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ship_shokaku23.jpg Simple, though maybe a bit more cumbersome.
Novice pilots - A6M2 had stall speed of 45-ish KT, a Hellcat 73 KT. With no wind and the carrier making a lazy 15 KT the approach speed is reduced to 30 KT for A6M2 and 58 KT for a Hellcat. Twice worse, it seems to me.
Armament - 6 50 cals is roughly about equal to 2 Hispanos. Type 99s are not Hispanos, but they are cannons nonetheless. I don't think there's much between the two.
Not being able to catch bombers is obviously a problem, but less so if they come to you. Were Zeros capable of defending their own carrier and their own bombers, provided Japanese had enough decent naval pilots? I don't know. I suspect they were, but I was wrong before.
Anyway, I don't see how Zero was outclassed? I may agree that it wasn't great any more, and it could not duke it out with land-based opposition, but outclassed in its primary role? I may be blind, but I can't see it.
Last edited:
Spit has even better numbers, so what? All those numbers didn't help it much over Darwin. (BTW - I'm a total sucker for Spits, so it physically hurts me to admit that.)
The only description of a Zero kill by a Hellcat I remember right now was this guy from (I think!) USS Yorktown CV-10, He killed his Zeke with a short burst, but this burst killed the pilot, the plane did not fall apart. I think that the fragility card is slightly overplayed. And of course it's not like a Zeke is an easy target to hit, so there is something for something here.
Land based, doesn't count. And I'm not so sure about N1K anyways.
Thanks, I will. Maybe I'll learn how to land on a carrier, finally.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There was a blend of land-based and naval fighters in the PTO...you cannot seperate the two, because IJN fighters encountered U.S. Army aircraft as well as USN aircraft encountering IJA aircraft. An early example would be the battle of Midway, were IJN forces encountered USN, USMC and Army aircraft in the initial attack, until the Yorktown and other naval forces engaged the Japanese fleet.
The first kill of an A6M by the Hellcat came in October 1943 during the battle of Wake Island, when Capt. Torrey of VF-9 downed a Zero in the initial brawl followed shortly by Lt. McWhorter, who was nearly downed by the debris of a Zero that exploded from his short burst.
You may want to research the A6M a little more, as it seems you're not aware that the A6M lacked proper armor and self-sealing tanks in an effort to provide maximum performance and range. There was nothing to protect the Zero's pilot, engine and fuel tanks except the aluminum skin. When six or eight .50 MGs snapped a volley into the A6M, terrible things happened.
Also, the F6F accounted for a large percentage of total Japanese aircraft lost diring the war. Many of those were the A6M.
The first kill of an A6M by the Hellcat came in October 1943 during the battle of Wake Island, when Capt. Torrey of VF-9 downed a Zero in the initial brawl followed shortly by Lt. McWhorter, who was nearly downed by the debris of a Zero that exploded from his short burst.
You may want to research the A6M a little more, as it seems you're not aware that the A6M lacked proper armor and self-sealing tanks in an effort to provide maximum performance and range. There was nothing to protect the Zero's pilot, engine and fuel tanks except the aluminum skin. When six or eight .50 MGs snapped a volley into the A6M, terrible things happened.
Also, the F6F accounted for a large percentage of total Japanese aircraft lost diring the war. Many of those were the A6M.
Generally speaking, land based fighters should be better, so even if Zeke was outperformed by its land based opposition or competition, it still does not mean it was outclassed by Hellcats and Corsairs.
Regarding armor, yes you couldn't put it on Zeke without big performance cost. Some extra losses when attacking bombers, maybe some lost pilots who could be saved otherwise. Well, it's war. But it's not like other nations, including USA, packed a few inches or reinforced concrete onto their planes either. Nothing which could stop a 20mm.
Zero losses to Hellcats - Turkey shoot, kamikaze, overclaiming, overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority. Do we need to blame the Zeke to explain its losses? For example, what would happen if Japanese had Hellcats and the USA had A6M5s? Would they fare any better? Personally, I see no reason to believe they would.
(BTW - previously I badmouthed N1K. I confused it with J2M somehow. I have no opinion on N1K, although it seems to be a great plane.)
With one 150 gal drop tank, the range of the Hellcat is either between 1340 and 1635 miles, depending what sheet one reads; radius is quoted at 335 or 375 miles. Speed used is 166 mph for range. Sheets can be seen here. The -5 can carry 3 drop tanks, so both range and radius will go up.
I was not been able to find the range/radius data for the Hellcat with 3 drop tanks (600 gals total), but data for the F4U-4 with 2 x 150 gals (534 gals total) can give us balpark - 525 n.miles of radius at 178 mph.
The Zeke 52 is listed at 1640 n. miles of range with the drop tank at 147 mph, the radius of 467 n. miles (here).
So I'd say that Hellcat with 3 drop tanks has more range and radius than any Zero.
Could you please double-check the stall speed for the Zero you've provided? The similarly small light F2A was at ~65 kt. At any rate, the Hellcat was praised for it's low speed handling, due to it's big wing being outfitted with 'extendable' flaps, similar to the Fowler-type.
Depends what is the target and who is the marksman. Whether the Hellcat lands bullet on the fuel tank, engine or the cockpit, the Zero is killed. Having 6 HMGs, each on it's own capable to icapacitate the Zero, gives the chances for an not-so-good marksman. The zero's cannons were useful, especially those belt-fed more powerful variants of the Oerlikon FFL were aboard. Shortcoming was the lower total RoF (1500 rpm vs. 4800 rpm) and, much greater problem, the ammo carried (100 rpg for the belt fed cannon, vs. 400 rpg)
All of the IJN carriers sunk in 1942 were sunk by air power, predominantly by the SBD dive bombers. I will not state that was only Zero's fault, the Japanes have had no radar-assited command control center(s) when that happened.
With that said - Zero was not able to kill any B-17 during the Midaway, it bagged just one B-26 of only four that attacked the carriers there, ammo load for the cannons was pitiful back then (60 rpg), only the unescorted Marine's dive bombers were badly mauled by Zeros*. Even prior the Midway, RAF's Blenheims penetrated the fighter screen and only luck saved the IJN carriers from being bombed. That is with 'creme de la creme' pilots of IJN.
It was outclassed. This might be of interest.
*added: of course, the USN torpedo bombers were decimated by Zeroes
Last edited:
Not concerning any aircraft type but I read somewhere (I believe on this forum) that at the time Japanese radios were very unreliable, so unreliable that some pilots had them removed. The force multiplying effect of communication can never be underestimated.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You really seem to be entrenched in the idea that the Zero was invinsable, even to the end.
What??
Show me one aircraft, U.S. or otherwise that used concrete as armor. The IL-2 and the Hs129 used a hardened steel "bathtub" to protect their pilot. Other types used a hardened steel plate behind the pilot, like the P-47, etc.
The A6M was developed from the A5M, it was an excellent design for it's time and delivered results beyond the designer and the IJN's expectations. However, it did not mature like it's contemporaries of the time, such as the Bf109 and the Spitfire. It became a dead end as other more improved Japanese types were being introduced. The only way to improve the A6M to be competitive and have survivability in the face of the newer Allied types, would be to improve it's engine output as well as introduce armor and self sealing tanks, for which it was not designed...this would mean a complete redesign. As it happens, the Japanese were intoducting new types and it didn't make sense to go to all that trouble to rebuild the Zero when better options were becoming available.
So the A6M was literally becoming extinct as the war drug on, because all the experienced pilots were getting the newer, more formidable Japanese types or they were being killed. In addition, the newer replacement pilots were not getting the training needed to survive the increasing numbers of Allied pilots.
If I may add about this:
The protection of fuel tanks would've eaten into the fuel volume, thus reducing the range/radius, not a great proposal for the IJN. As for the comment 'weel, it's war' - the line of thinking that pilots don't need protection was proven as faulty. Pilots, especially well trained and experienced don't just grow on trees. The table I've provided the link notes that only Zero (both marks listed) does not feature any pilot or fuel tank protection, and it actaully meant it was obsolete.
Protection is not just there to protect from the hits from eemy fighters, it can save a day vs. the bomber defensive fire.
The reinforced concrete armor in the aircraft is a good joke The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.
Nobody is blaming exclusively the Zero for the lost air-mava battles and the outcome of Pacific war. Everybody will agree that Zero was one of the greatest fighters that took part in ww2.
The IJN is to blame for not having at least two designs that would suceed Zero from 1943 on. Lousy output of both pilots and planes until it was too late to matter. We can blame the IJN for not having a belt-fed cannon in the Zero already in early 1942, if not in 141. We can blame the hawks from the IJN for starting the war with the USA in the 1st place. We can blame Jamamoto for underestimating the fighting spirit of the USN in 1942, thus coming out with the plan that cost him 4 carriers in one day, 300 aircraft and numerous trained capable men, plus the altreatment the survivors (really a low point i the IJN conduct of war).The whole concept of desisive victory oer USN was faulty. Lack of anti-aircraft means on the ships, lack of good preparation to contain the ships damage. Lack of prepardnes for the submarine threat.
This uncomplete list dwarfs shortcomings of a particular weapon of the IJN.
The protection of fuel tanks would've eaten into the fuel volume, thus reducing the range/radius, not a great proposal for the IJN. As for the comment 'weel, it's war' - the line of thinking that pilots don't need protection was proven as faulty. Pilots, especially well trained and experienced don't just grow on trees. The table I've provided the link notes that only Zero (both marks listed) does not feature any pilot or fuel tank protection, and it actaully meant it was obsolete.
Protection is not just there to protect from the hits from eemy fighters, it can save a day vs. the bomber defensive fire.
The reinforced concrete armor in the aircraft is a good joke
The 20 mm shell will detonate on the aircraft skin, granted many aircraft will be downed by the cannon fire. Quirk is that shrapnels need to incapacitate the pilot, or ignite the fuel in the tanks lines, the Hellcat was well protected.Nobody is blaming exclusively the Zero for the lost air-mava battles and the outcome of Pacific war. Everybody will agree that Zero was one of the greatest fighters that took part in ww2.
The IJN is to blame for not having at least two designs that would suceed Zero from 1943 on. Lousy output of both pilots and planes until it was too late to matter. We can blame the IJN for not having a belt-fed cannon in the Zero already in early 1942, if not in 141. We can blame the hawks from the IJN for starting the war with the USA in the 1st place. We can blame Jamamoto for underestimating the fighting spirit of the USN in 1942, thus coming out with the plan that cost him 4 carriers in one day, 300 aircraft and numerous trained capable men, plus the altreatment the survivors (really a low point i the IJN conduct of war).The whole concept of desisive victory oer USN was faulty. Lack of anti-aircraft means on the ships, lack of good preparation to contain the ships damage. Lack of prepardnes for the submarine threat.
This uncomplete list dwarfs shortcomings of a particular weapon of the IJN.
Last edited:
