September 8th, 2009, 08:47 PM
|
 |
Saddle Tramp  |
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Billings Montana, USA
Posts: 4,313
Salute!: 545
Saluted 676 Times in 454 Posts
|
|
Re: Luftwaffe Zeros?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gromit801
Take plane vs plane performance aside. I find the idea of a plane in the hands of the Luftwaffe, that could stay with the bombers anywhere they wanted to go in the UK, very intriguing. Not having to leave the bombers unprotected because they ran low of fuel, able to protect them to industries in the midlands and back. Able to bomb and strafe training fields, etc.
|
Intriguing or not, probably not that much of a "battle changer". I think the problem here with the early model of the A6M in the BoB is that there were few of them available at the time, and while they were agile, they were flammable and under armored. They didn’t fare all that well against our (American) F4F Wildcat, and it would be very hard pressed to defeat a Spitfire if the pilots were equal. The early failures of the Hurricanes against the Japanese fighters in the PTO was more tactics than inferior planes or pilots.
It has always been common belief that the Japanese Navy's frontline fighter, the legendary A6M Zero, was superior to the Wildcat. And in many ways it was. The A6M3 Zero's top speed was 336 mph (later models reached 354), better then the F4F-4's 318 mph. Although the Wildcat could turn well, it couldn't turn with the extremely agile Zero. The A6M3, with its best climb of 4,500 ft/min., could easily out climb the Wildcat. It also out ranged it, with a range of 1,480 miles to the Wildcat's 770. It's armament was debatably better, two 7.7mm machine guns and two Type 99 20mm cannons (although the latter fired slowly and were only effective at close range).
On the other hand, the F4F-4 had some advantages. It could power dive faster than the Zero; Wildcats could sustain a dive that would shear the wings off a Zero. The Wildcat also had a superior roll rate. Its airframe was sturdier than the Zero's, and it could survive considerably more battle damage. The F4F-4 had self-sealing fuel tanks, which the Zero lacked. American pilots found the lightly built, unprotected Zero would flame easily, and often disintegrate under the fire from their six .50 machine guns. Also, the F4F-4 had a service ceiling of 39,400 feet, the A6M3 topped out at 36,250 feet. And, of course, the F4F had armor to protect its pilot, while the Zero didn't.
See:
F4F WILDCAT
And let’s not forget that the Hurricane and Spitfire would be fighting over their own territory, and they were probably superior fighters to the Navy’s Wildcat, which still had a nearly 2 to 1 kill advantage over the Zero (I’ve seen about 1.1 to 1, as well as 3 to 1 kill ratios). It might have taken the RAF a few failures to get the message as to tactics to use against the A6M, as they did in the first encounters with the Luftwaffe’s Bf-109 in their "finger four" flights. But they surely would have figured the A6Ms out just as the USAAF and USN did.
__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.
|