Say you were going up into the air over the pacific during WWII. Which plane would you rather fly in? Is your answer just personal preference or do you think one plane was clearly better than the other? Feel free to spend some time explaining your answer.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Well, this is a rather broad question that is not going to have a straight forward answer. For example, which model, or models, of these two aircraft are to be considered. There is considerable difference between the F4F-3 and -4 and the later FM 1 and 2 (F4F's built by GM later in the war) as there is between the A6M-2 and -6 and the models in between.
Are we to consider this in the context of tactics and doctrine that the aircraft were used in?

But, that aside, in the early war period where both aircraft were the two combatant's first line fighters I think I'd prefer the Zero to the Wildcat. Losses through the Guadalcanal campaign in fighter on fighter combat were dead even. As far as flying characteristics the Zero was a sports car while the Wildcat was a brick with wings. The Wildcat has a firepower advantage but it is not overwhelming.
What saved the USN was superior doctrine and tactics. Without these the Wildcat would have been cut to pieces in fighter on fighter combat. From the use of deflection shooting to the Thach Weave (introduced at Midway), to carrier controlled interception the US Navy was well ahead of the loose V of three formation the Japanese used. Further handicapping the Japanese was a lack of coordinated use of their CAP as they lacked the equivalent of the US carrier controlled interception system.
So, while the Zero was the superior plane the Wildcat was operating in the superior system. In the end, it was the system that was more important.

I would agree with everything TA said and also add that the US government did fear the Zero and was very happy to get the one in Alaska to test.

Anouther aircraft where tactics and use made a big difference is the Brewster Buffalo. The US Marines got shot to pieces in them where as the Dutch and Finns used them with great results. The Dutch used them in Java and shot down alot of Japanese before being overwhielmed in sheer numbers.

Both the Zero and Wildcat were good aircraft and used in the war from start to finish, so the bottom line as always is the person doing the flying and his luck and skill that day.

I had always wondered if the Wildcat ever fought any German fighters. The Royal Navy used them and called them Martletts or something like that.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

The Ranger made at least one raid on Norway in 1942. Perhaps then, or on another raid?

Well, since my father was a F4F-3 and F4F-4 combat flyer in the early days (Coral Sea, Midway, Solomons, that sort, including accounting for two A6Ms, himself) and I did not come along until after the war, I am somewhat partial to the F4F.

As was mentioned, up through the Guadalcanal campaign and, indeed, into the summer of 1943, the F4F and A6M generally fought to a draw. In fact, up through Midway, the F4F drivers were slightly ahead, something like 14 A6Ms shot down by F4Fs to 12 F4Fs shot down by A6Ms. As long as one remembered to keep up his speed in the F4F and avoid turning contests, yet at the same time present only full deflection opportunities to the A6M adversary, then an F4F driver had a equal chance of survival and even victory.

The A6M really excelled at the low speed, turn and burn WW1 type environment. The Japanese fighter pilots really preferred the overhead-rear, zero to low-deflection approach. The A6M was not ergonomically optimized for deflection shooting. The F4F was the opposite. Not that it was particularly sluggish to maneuver at slower speed, it was just not as nimble as the A6M. At higher speeds, starting at about 250 knots, the F4F had the maneuver advantage as the A6M was most definitively sluggish due to aileron pressures. And the F4F, with it’s downward sloped nose was optimized for deflection gunnery and, as a result of their training, the USN VF pilots could and would attack from just about any approach.

Defensively, if an A6M happened to latch on an F4F’s stern, keeping one’s speed up and a fast break to the right, followed (provided one had the altitude) by a dive would do the trick. The A6M, at higher speeds, was very difficult to turn to the right. Such a turn would also present a full deflection shot that was difficult at best for the A6M driver.

Even at lower speeds where the A6M turned better, in order for him to pull off a full deflection shot, he would have to pull off the turn slightly by dropping his nose just so he could see his target. Then, he would have to pull back in to the turn, somewhat harder, to bring his nose up to where he would be leading his victim when he opened fire. An alert F4F driver (and after Midway, but before the Koga Zero test results were released, they were so advised by the survivors of the early encounters) could watch the nose of his pursuer drop for target acquisition and then start to come up preparatory to firing. In that time space, the erstwhile F4F victim was out of the A6M driver’s view and that was the time to get out of Dodge. Further complicating the A6M driver’s problems was the disparity in his armament. His 7.7’s had next to no effect on the F4F and he had to come in close to use his 20 mm. That, again, restricted his potential approaches. Also they had a tendency to open fire with their 7.7’s as ranging rounds and then, when satisfied, cut in with the 20 mm. Often, the brief second of so of 7.7 fire was enough to warn the F4F driver of a potential predicament and to take action.

So, counting on a little knowledge, the better protection of the F4F, and the propensity for an A6M taken under fire (due to its own lack of protective features) to go up in flames, I’d take the F4F over the A6M.

In answer to the Wildcat against Axis aircraft, yes, indeed Wildcats, in USN and RN service, accounted for German, Italian, and, even, Vichy aircraft, including fighters.

The RN F4F and FM pilots were credited with bringing down 55 aircraft to 4 losses: 11 Ju-88, 13 BV-138; 10 Fw-200; 4 SM.79, 4 Me-109G; 3 Morane 406C; 2 Potez 63; and 1 each G.50, Z.506B, Re.2000, Bloch 174, He-111, He-115, He-177, Ju-290, and Kawanishi H6K.

USN F4F pilots were credited with bringing down 25 aircraft (23 of these were Vichy) to 5 losses (all to Vichy fighters): 12 Curtis 75A's; 5 D.520's; 3 Martin 167's; 2 Potez 63, and 1 each DB-7, Ju-88, and He-115.

Also, since the Koga A6M recovered from the Aleutians has been mentioned, please, no one say that the F4F’s replacement, the F6F, was designed to defeat the A6M or that it’s design was influenced by the Koga A6M, as none of that is true.

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

comparing the Zero (M2) and the Wildcat (both F3 and F4), it appears both planes had more or less the same top speed, at both military and war emergency power and at all altitudes up to 10.000m.

The Zero was way much more maneuverable up to 370-390 kph, but at higher speeds the sluggish butterfly elevator was really hard to operate and the wildcat was more maneuverable (the Bf-109 had the same issue BTW).

On the other hand, the Wildcat had a maneuverability issue at low speed, you can see this when you know it's corner speed was 300 kph at 0m, which is really high for such an overall slow plane.

About weapons, the wildcat suffered from the lack of canons, like all US WWII designs, but this was never a real issue as long as they mostly faced fighters, especialy Japanese early zeroes with their very low survivability.

On the other hand, the wildcat was a rather sturdy plane.

In sustained climb non had a clear superiority.

But in combat situation, the HUGE advantage of the zero in zoom climb (up to 6000m) and acceleration, gave it a clear hedge on the wildcat.

The zero was a better plane, but with proper doctrine, ROE and teamwork, what really counts is the top speed, that's the reason why, for example, the Flying Tigers did a good job with their crappy P-40 against zeroes.

Anyway, both planes were totaly obsolete at the end of 1942 by ETO standards.

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

Contrary to popular belief, the AVG P-40s never faced A6Ms. Their adversaries were Army, not Navy. In the early days, any fighter with a greenhouse canopy and meatballs was a Zero, but the AVG was primarily concerned with Ki-43s, which at a quick glance could possibly be mistaken for an A6M. Largely they were briefed to expect A6Ms, so that was what they saw and reported, but, no, the JAAF did not operate A6Ms and the JNAF did not fly against the Flying Tigers.

As far as the A6M's zoom climb ability, that was a double edged sword. In fact, annecdotally, if you read enough accounts of F4F v A6M encounters, you find A6Ms executing their high-side-rear attacks and then pulling up in front of their intended victim . . . big mistake against a deflection shooter. The A6M zoom climb capability only stood them good stead against non-fighter targets.

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

You're right I made a typo, they met oscars, which had the same virtues and flaws than the zeroes.

I don't agree about the rest : passing in front of your target is a mistake in the first place, if after this first mistake, you make another one by wasting energy in a zoom climb while in a defensive position, you deserve to be shot down. This is poor piloting, not a plane issue.

Otherwise you could say that the wildcat was very inferior to the zero (which is not true) because there are many reports of US pilots who got shot down after panicking and entering turning fight against zeroes.

Also, I forgot to mention that the Zero had a much better pilot visibility than the Wildcat.

Another interesting thing is the fact the Wildcat had a much better upgrade potential than the Zero : the late war Zero versions were only slightly superior to the FM-2, and by this time, they were meeting much more serious game than the long phased out Wildcats.

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

Thank you Rich !!!!! You really know your stuff on Wildcats. Without doing much research, do you know off hand the story on the Wildcat shooting down the Kawanishi H6K ? I would assume it was some Japanese big shots visiting Europe but do you know any more ?

You can thank the History Channel for the Hellcat coming from the captured Zero story. Then there is anouther story of the Zero coming from the Hughs racer aircraft of the late 30's.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Wildcat.


That ugly as sin flying brick would bring my candy ass home time and time again.

__________________

Hey Rich, please don't let facts get in the way of a good story

__________________

Which H6K shot down by a Wildcat do you mean? There were around 14 shot down by USN F4Fs in the Pacific, though I surprised myself to find that there were none credited to FM-2 drivers. J

I presume you mean the one listed as an FAA credit. On 7 August 1942 Sub-Lieuts. Scott and Ballard, from 888 Squadron (Capt. FDG Bird, RM) off HMS Formidable splashed a Kawanishi H6K 'Mavis' flying boat in the Bay of Bengal.

And incidentally, during Operation Torch, on 6 November 1942 Lieut. Jeram, of 888 Squadron, shot down a Vichy Bloch 174. On 9 November, he shared a Ju-88 with Sub-Lieut Astin. And with a Cantieri Z.50B floatplane shot down on 9 September 1943 during operation Avalanche (not sure who did the deed), 888 Squadron became the only Allied squadron able to claim kills on German, Italian, Japanese, and Vichy opponents. All in F4Fs.

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

I was looking for more information on 888 squadon and found this small essay written by you ! Pretty good stuff.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...f-3-a-840.html

Too bad the History Channel does not consult people of your caliber for their shows.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

I was looking some more and found some good pictures of Royal Navy Wildcats at this site. It is interesting that the Royal Navy put rear view mirrors on their aircraft. I have not seen the on USN Wildcats. The 888 squadron picture is pretty good.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/wildcatfaaba_1.htm

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

One on one I'd probably choose the Zero, depending on the mission, fighter sweep/bomber protection etc..
For it's climb rate, range, cannon armament.
In bunches, the Wildcat.
Better training, diving attacks, survivability, maintenance, fuel/ammo supplies, "Thatch" weave, mutual support.
The only gripes I've read about is the hand cranked under carriage. As soon as the wheels lifted, they'd crank like a dog to get that stuff up. I guess it killed airspeed.
Don't "Dog-fight", or climb with the Zero. Knife through em from above, climb, and do it again.
It would bring you home to fight another day, and it held the line.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

Actually the FAA put their rear view mirrors for F4Fs on the outside of the canopy. USN F4Fs had their mirrors inside the canopy.

Thusly, for example, in this picture taken aboard USS Hornet after the Battle of Midway. You can see the mirror inside the windscreen just under the forward bow of the canopy.

Attached Images

WNL after Midway.jpg (25.7 KB, 9 views)

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

And . . .

I have been cleaning out files, again, and found the following as a hand written response to a questionnaire from a researcher for the American Fighter Aces Association. Each numbered and lettered paragraph is an item specifically listed in the questionnaire for pilot comment. Typos are mine.

Start

William N. Leonard, Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.)
Notes on Operation, Grumman F4F-3 from 3-41 to 5-42 (VF-42) and F4F-4 from 5-42 to 8-43 (VF-3, VF-11)
21 September 1993

1. Pre-flight Procedure - (From the standpoint of an aircraft carrier deck launch): Each item must be carried out as promptly as safety/accuracy permit because ship will turn into the wind with the intent of launching promptly to minimize the length of time on a steady course – a dangerous time under torpedo threat.
“Pilots man your planes” – on this order leave ready room and double time to assigned plane. Greet plane captain, get assurance ‘she’ is ready to go and climb in. PC helps getting settled in cockpit. Parachute already there – put buckles in place but don’t connect until airborne and assured the Wright brothers were indeed right.
Set controls, settings, switches to ready for prompt action on the word:
“Start engine” - Fire up, warm up, run up, check mags, etc. Give thumbs up if plane is OK for TO. Watch deck controlman for hand signals freeing plane from tie downs. Follow directions into take off spot. When turned over to launch officer, give him final thumbs up. On his signal, run engine up to TO power and, when he flags you away, release breaks and GO.
Quite a few things happening here and not much time; much teamwork - pilots, PC, deck handlers, and all coordinated with the movement of 30000 tons of ship. This was a good way to start the day/mission. F4F-3 was a steady solid machine, somewhat complex but not tricky. Rather fight in this machine than anything else available in the period. Better machines were coming, but oh, so, slowly.

2. Cockpit:
a. Comfort – like all Grummans there was plenty of room once inside the narrow opening. Well tailored to the average pilot, all controls and adjustments were reasonable. Never worry about heating, cockpit was a noisy, hot box. Oxygen- very up to date diluter, demand good for a machine that could go to 35000 feet (but took a long time to get there and almost never found business at that level). Seat – no special remarks, it was adjustable if you knew how to use your thigh muscles. Rudder pedals nicely adjustable for the shorties. Hand cranked landing gear a pain, but bearable, a simplicity bonus.

b. Instruments – A fair layout, though the magnetic compass was hard to see. Fuel gauge wildly inaccurate – had to rely on the clock to keep track of fuel state. Gun charging was all manual, a chore. Luckily, it was not often needed. Some folks did have fits with the guns until we learned the facts of feeding and care - avoid negative G!

c. Control – F4F-3/4 conformed well to USN standards of stability and control. Rudder control at take-off and low speeds deficient and caused incidents. Rudder trim changed with changes in speed – bad for gunnery until the pilot got wise and remembered what to do. Plane was fast but well behaved carrier landing machine – hard to slow down. With some experience, the average pilot looked good landing this plane. At high combat speeds, the F4F had excellent control and response. Too bad, there was not enough engine to fly that way and maintain altitude.

d. Vision – OK, superior except for directly aft and taxiing. In the latter, nose high stance could be helped by zigzag path.

e. Communications – Radio equipment was primitive, weak, complex. This was one of the great problems of this period of the fighting.

3. Engine:
a. It was nice, smooth running, but noisy. Heavy – had a big weight investment in 2 speed, 2 stage superchcharger which was under-used because 1942 fighters found full employment at moderate altitudes. There was not enough power for the heavy F4F-3/4.

b. Highly reliable and trouble free. Hard to start with the shotgun starter in humid conditions. Rugged, stood up to high demands. The Curtiss electric prop gave some reliability problems, not the engine’s fault.

c. Fuel consumption – also not engine’s fault – but there was not enough on board. So, F4F was short legged and short winded. Fuel gauge was a mess (see instruments). Aux tanks not experienced until Guadalcanal – the 2 x 58 gal. added range and endurance, but not much and hurt fighter performance; had to be dripped to fight, quantity not gauged.

4. Climb to altitude: Deficient, poor power loading so no cure short of buying a new airplane.

5. Cruise: No complaints save hot, noisy cockpit, lying fuel gauge and no hands-off flying stability.

6. Combat:
a. Guns – 4 x .50 cal. with corresponding ammo was tolerable; 6 x .50 cal. with less ammo was a poorer battery. The .50 cal. Browning was a good piece but needed care and understanding. In good hands it was a winner. Ammo for this gun was good and reliable. F4F-3 reflector sight was a poor installation – cleaner in the F4F-4, but still a big threat projecting into the pilot’s face on an arrested or forced landing.

b. Bombs or rockets not used. Strafing quite impressive – had a good session on a Jap destroyer on 4 May 42. Ran him aground.

c. Great freedom diving and turning, no fear of high G structural effects. Climb was poor – already noted above. Engine was willing and put out without overheat or complaint, just not enough power. Hard pulling and fast turning saved many lives. You can develop an affection for a machine like that.

d. Part of c above comes from Grumman’s Iron Works way of putting the machine together. When perforated or bashed it still could fly and fight. No armor seat, plates on bulkheads ahead and behind. Main tank self-sealing fuel protection – it worked. Aux tanks inerted with CO2 when empty – no known failure of that system.

e. Evaluation – When aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the F4F-3/4 a knowledgeable pilot could earn his keep. Do not dog fight, keep speed up, watch fuel state, and you can tally, come home, and repeat. Enemy flashy maneuverability was worrisome, but don’t play their game. Against their dive and torpedo planes, the F4F-3/4 turned into a flying dragon. Problem was to create an engagement – largely the doing of a good fighter director and functioning communications. When these clicked, there was joy in fighter town. Improvement was a goal slowly attained.

7. Landing: The F4F-3/4 behaved very well here, especially on the carrier. Ground loop tendency on field landings was a problem, not much harm except to the pilot’s ego. Time and experience were the usual remedies.

8. Bail out and ditching: I have no personal experience with these – yet (knock on wood). However I attended numerous events close up. F4F-3/4 seemed to have average bail-out score, tolerable. Until we got shoulder straps in the summer of 1942, all over-water flight suffered from the dread of fatality because the F4F landed fast, sank fast, and the pilot was usually knocked senseless by the gun sight or instrument panel. We flew in this state of peril from early 1941 through the summer of 1942 and it was uncomfortable. Once we had a good shoulder harness, our peril receded to that normally acceptable for our calling.

End

For what it’s worth, I thought it interesting. He mentions the ground loop problem and I sat down once with him and went over the issue. Not trusting my memory, somewhere around here I have the write up of the fruits of that conversation; I’ll try to find it.

I also note the phrase “Rather fight in this machine than anything else available in the period.” This from a pilot not only an F4F ace, but also one of the few experienced USN A6M pilots, having time in both the A6M2 and the A6M5; and the guy who, in the late summer – early fall of 1944, introduced the concept of using a Zero to train with USN fighter pilots head west.

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .

Sorry for my extended absence but I return now in earnest. Seemed like I should participate in my own thread eh?
What about the weapons each plane was fitted with? Do you prefer a pair of 20mm cannons and 7.7 machine guns or 6 50's?
And by the way, I intended to compare the earlier models of these planes.
And what about the lack of armour on the Zeros? I know speed was a great capability, but no armour could cause you to lose many of your aces prematurely.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

As installed, the 7.7 guns in the Zero had a low rate of fire (propeller sync slow up) and poor penetration. Basically a rifle round. The 20 mm, when it hit was quite effective, but suffered from low muzzle velocity and poor range. See above on limiting gunnery factors. First you have to hit the target.

Browning M2s had both rate of fire and, I believe, without bothering to look it up, range over the Zero's suite. The problem with the F4F was that they went from 4 guns in the -3 to six guns in the -4 and made up the difference by reducing available ammunition. This was pretty much universally bashed by the practitioners of the time to the point that the Eastern version of the F4F-4, the FM-1 reverted to 4 guns as did it's follow-on the FM-2. As Jimmy Thach said, ""if you can't hit with 4 guns, you won't hit with six," or something to that effect.

The M2 batteries, in either case, 4 or 6, were quite effective against the unamored Zero, and any other Japanese type encountered, for that matter, for the same reason, no armor protection.

Rich

__________________
I wonder what this button does . . .