>the "inferior" naval fighter. >still mogs the Mitsubishi

>the "inferior" naval fighter
>still mogs the Mitsubishi
Amazing what just a modicum of durability can do. It's a real shame the French cats didn't make it in time for the Battle of France.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No radars and far worse gas were the main problems of the IJN in the 41-42. The aircrafts themselves weren't bad.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Once the USA figured out the major flaws in the zero. The F4F started to mop the floor.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine experiencing control inversion below your VNE, just imagine.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    they weren't mogging anything until the hellcat, even the corsairs were performing just okay as fighters

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they weren't mogging anything until the hellcat
      kek the entire IJN air crew was dead long before the Hellcat entered service.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Falls into a similar category as the P-40 I guess; average performance, sturdy construction, and still deadly when used in conjunction with good pilots.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't the P-40 do better than the hellcat though?
      It could outrun the zero and at high altitudes it could keep up the Zeros maneuverability.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Japs are no armor best armor fan, however they have shit engine and gas, and worse pilot in late war

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Funny how HasArmor is also HasGoodPilot later in the war. Almost like that armor serves a purpose.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        technically, the wildcat didnt have that much more armor than the zero
        it had an armored chair and bullet proof glass for the pilot, and a thin armor plate around the engine cowling, but not much more than that

        its main protection came from its rugged construction where it could keep flying despite chunks of it missing and basically forced the zeros to use their cannons

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The French had more aircraft than they had pilots, unused. What killed them is Reynaud, Weygand and Petain being utterly defeatist and buckbroken, and literally refusing to do anything.
          >we will not save our cities by destroying them

          As for the F4F-Zero story... actually the problem is that 20th/21st century Americans worship technology, are sensitive to being beaten, and have difficulty coming to terms with their rookie status in 1941.

          Fighting the Japs, American pilots made all the mistakes that every air force makes, this was vital to gaining combat experience and becoming better. WW2 aerial combat was one battlefield where all the training in the world couldn't beat experience. Every air force paid their dues in buckets of blood; the Battle of France and Britain was deadly for both sides.

          With proper tactics, the F4F could outfight the Zero, Jimmy Thach showed that.

          Americans however had difficulty coping with this and turned, as usual, to technology; they blamed inferior fighters for the defeat, and sought technical superiority in this area.

          Reality is that the F4F and Zero have differing advantages and need to be fought differently.

          >it had an armored chair and bullet proof glass for the pilot, and a thin armor plate around the engine cowling
          You forgot self-sealing fuel tanks, which was very important for not exploding in a fireball after taking a couple of rounds

          Every single individual remotely considering himself as a historian will go on verses about how much the Americans were outclassed in the air early in the war.
          Yet the results of every single fricking engagement I have come across are anything short of inconclusive or maybe the Japs had a little bit more kd on average? I simply don't get it. I am such a fricking mad zero shill, its my favorite aircraft, yet its superior turn, armament, and allegedly best pilots in the world in the end did not mean jackshit. As soon as the Americans got a little bit of an edge, with the Akutan zero shit, kds fricking pluner and now even the F4Fs outkill the zero. With the F6F they basically mop the floor lol. You have like 10 zeroes against 2 F6Fs and 8 get shot down with the remaining crash landing on the way back.

          In the end its the engine that matters in an aircraft, this metric seems most credible after considering the pacific

          >I simply don't get it
          American seethe over being inexperienced and not having the best Uberfighter in the world the first couple months of the war

          >Le American fighters....le outmatched
          is a meme designed to denigrate American equipment in order to excuse training and doctrine failures and glorify the American fighting man.
          In reality, early war American equipment was largely superior to Japanese and German equipment, but early war American training and doctrine was kinda bad. Fricking Brewster Buffalos had the highest ratio of pilots to aces of any aircraft of all time, but no American aces.

          >early war American training and doctrine was kinda bad
          This
          >early war American equipment was largely superior
          No in this particular case; American fighters lagged behind British, German and Japanese early on
          It got much better very quickly of course

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No in this particular case; American fighters lagged behind British, German and Japanese early on

            I disagree. The main difference between the American frontline fighter at the start of the war, the P-40 and the frontline British and German fighters, Spitfire and Me-109 are that the Euros were more dedicated short range tactical fighters. They were smaller and single purpose. The P-40 was a larger and more versatile aircraft. It could carry a decent sized bomb. It had a heavier armament. Spitfire was intended to be a short ranged interceptor. It had no range at all and was all performance. The Me-109 wasn't a dedicated interceptor but was a small and extreme aircraft. Both were much lighter and shorter ranged. Better "pilot's" aircraft but also not very flexible. They had something like half the effective combat range.

            So I really think its not a case of technical inferiority but the planes were just built to different ideas of what a fighter should be. Almost every US fighter was a multirole fighter bomber. Compared to everyone else who aren't the Bongs or the Germans and the P-40 is world class. Clearly better than anything the French, Soviets or the minor nations had in 1940. The French were panic buying P-36s at the time.

            As for naval aviation, the only side that was comparable was Japan. British naval aviation was old and shit from RAF negligence before the war and meddling during the war. The best British carrier aircraft of the war were American made. The Germans didn't seriously have naval aviation. And neither did anyone else.

            Everything you said about tactics and training is true. Everyone had to learn how much they were lacking. Japan had an early advantage there because their pilots did have some combat experience. Their training pipeline was also shit and they never fixed that so once the vets were dead or captured they only had trash pilots. Germany had a similar but not as serious problem

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Almost every US fighter was a multirole fighter bomber. Compared to everyone else who aren't the Bongs or the Germans and the P-40 is world class
              You're arguing the P-40 had better range, which is fine; but of limited use when range isn't operationally relevant. It's like putting points into a dump stat.
              >multirole fighter bomber
              As time went on, the P-40 was relegated to fighter-bomber role like every other inferior or obsolete fighter of the period, Hurricanes and earlier Bf109s included. At this time most fighter aircraft were actually multi-role, they were just optimised for different roles. The P-40 was not particularly brilliant as a fighter-bomber; the premier American fighter-bomber is the P-47.

              >The French were panic
              nuff said

              >As for naval aviation, the only side that was comparable was Jap
              True, and as I said, American naval fighters did better than they're credited for.
              On the bomb side, the Dauntless is in the running to be the best carrier strike aircraft of the war.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're arguing the P-40 had better range, which is fine; but of limited use when range isn't operationally relevant. It's like putting points into a dump stat.

                Terrible take. Range is often underestimated by laymen so not surprising. Its not just how far you can fly. But how long you can fly once you get there. More range means more loiter time. It means more payload to target and back. It means more margin for your pilots and therefore more get to make it home and fight again. This is why the US invests in the largest fleet of tankers in the world. It's a mission enabler.

                >operationally relevant.

                Do you know what that actually means in a military context? Because range is one of the most operationally relevant aspects of a combat aircraft.

                >As time went on, the P-40 was relegated to fighter-bomber role like every other inferior or obsolete fighter of the period, Hurricanes and earlier Bf109s included. At this time most fighter aircraft were actually multi-role, they were just optimised for different roles. The P-40 was not particularly brilliant as a fighter-bomber; the premier American fighter-bomber is the P-47.

                We're talking about early war so the P-47 isn't really relevant. But to that I'd say, no shit a later, more advanced aircraft is gonna be more capable. That's how things are supposed to go.

                My point is that the P-40 always had a multirole capability. Its contemporaries did not. It also had a solid record both in air to air combat and as a fighter bomber throughout the war. So I'm not sure where you got the idea it was lack luster. hyper focus on the ETO maybe? If it was so mediocre why did it serve for the entire conflict and continue to be developed up till the end? Its one of a few that did.

                >nuff said

                Not really. The P-36 was a very popular aircraft with export. The French were panic buying but they also weren't exactly settling with the P36. It had an excellent reputation.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is why the US invests in the largest fleet of tankers in the world. It's a mission enabler
                >Because range is one of the most operationally relevant aspects of a combat aircraft.
                Fine, but you are using a modern analogy.
                We are discussing WW2.
                Demonstrate to me how the P-40's superior range gave it better performance in the ETO over the Spitfire and Bf109.

                >the P-40 always had a multirole capability. Its contemporaries did not
                In what way?
                Leave range aside for the moment.

                Didn't the P-40 do better than the hellcat though?
                It could outrun the zero and at high altitudes it could keep up the Zeros maneuverability.

                The P-40 was better than the F4F I think. Not sure about the Hellcat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Demonstrate to me how the P-40's superior range gave it better performance in the ETO
                Not the same guy but I would definitely agree range is surprisingly critical, even when talking about Europe not the pacific. Best example I can give is with BF109s and the Battle of Britain. Simply put, BF109s had shit range and could not do much about it. When they had to fly sorties from France/lowlands to London, fight there, and then come back, pilots quickly found out the "fight there" part could only happen for a dozen or so minutes, maybe even less, otherwise they were forced to go for a nice swim on their way back. If the Germans had the P40 I believe it would have served them much better in that case, especially since we are still talking like 1940.
                Sorry for not giving an actual case where P40's range proved crucial, beyond my scope of knowledge, but what I said I would argue certainly stands

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Demonstrate to me how the P-40's superior range gave it better performance in the ETO over the Spitfire and Bf109.

                So now you are moving to goalposts to the ETO? The one theater where the P-40 was poorly suited because of its supercharger setup. I already suggested you were hyper focusing on that theater to form your opinion. The P-40 fought in every theater in the war and had a solid record everywhere except the ETO and that's entirely due to the high altitude nature of the combat.

                It did well in Africa, The eastern front, Pacific, Burma and China. And at least in two of those it went up against 109's regularly and was not found lacking.

                >Fine, but you are using a modern analogy.
                >We are discussing WW2.

                I didn't give an analogy, I was explaining the concept. And range as an operational enabler is not a modern concept. It was well understood at the time. The differences in design have everything to do with doctrine and the war the designers expected the aircraft to fight. That's a big topic on its own. But suffice it to say, pre-war USAAC's air defense mission involved patrolling the skies over America's vast coastlines. Range was required to pull off the mission. The Brits designed Spitfire as a high performance interceptor meant to kill incoming bombers. It was never expected to fly far from home or for long. It worked really well in this role. But its short legs kept it from other missions. It never could escort bombers and that lack of escort contributed to heavy losses which convinced bomber command to switch to safer but less effective night bombing.

                >Leave range aside for the moment.

                It had bomb shackles and drop tanks from the factory. The Spitfire and 109 did not. They were later additions.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >now you are moving to goalposts to the ETO
                Not moving anything; I've always regarded the ETO as the only real test
                >Because there's no other theatre where fighter development was of great significance

                >solid record everywhere except the ETO
                where technical development was key
                >did well in Africa
                where the DAK was outnumbered and starved of fuel
                >The eastern front
                where anything was better than Russian shitbirds
                >Pacific, Burma and China
                where the Japs were tied to one one-trick pony whose inferiories have been amply discussed ITT

                >that lack of escort contributed to heavy losses which convinced bomber command to switch to safer but less effective night bombing
                the Battle of Britain demonstrated that unless a very great difference in fighter force could be achieved, daytime bombing was suboptimal and unsustainable.
                The Spitfire worked fine once it went across the Channel.
                However, even if the Bf109 had more range and even if the Spitfire had more range, neither opponent would have bested the other, the two fighter forces were too closely matched.
                This early in the war, range was not operationally relevant.

                >It had bomb shackles
                Big fricking deal.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >where the DAK was outnumbered and starved of fuel
                Not related to this but they were starved of fuel because Rommel was repeatedly told not to advance too far from the only sizeable ports and he did so repeatedly anyway, got to the point where it cost more fuel for the trucks to ship fuel forwards than was acquired at the other end and then cried and blamed the Italians. But then Germans and logistics don't occupy the same reality.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The RN and RAF did an amazing job blowing up his oil. They had this trick of using Ultra to find when the oil tanker was sailing and picking the poor bastard out.

                As for Rommel, he certainly overextended himself, but it can be argued he had little choice. And oil supply was not under his operational control.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it can be argued he had little choice
                The absolute state of wehraboos

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The alternative choice of sitting on the harbor just means the British get to amass a giant mountain of materiel undisturbed and then tip it over on his head. Choosing to give up the initiative was to choose guaranteed death.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not a problem of doctrine.

                The French and British between them outnumbered the Luftwaffe in fighter airframes, with the Luftwaffe's large bomber and gorund attack fleet making up the difference. It very much was a big doctrine problem. AdA doctrine and organisation were laid out to generate roughly one sortie per day per plane in a long war. Then the Luftwaffe came rolling in with a sprint effort having everyone flying 5+ sorties a day at the height of the battle. Allied fighters outnumbered German ones on paper, and yet found themselves steeply outnumbered in the air.

                The French had more airframes on paper than they had pilots to man them; the British kept a large number of Hurricanes based in Britain because the French were already falling apart; this was the reason for the low sortie rate. Also, at this point the RAF had too many obsolete Gladiators, too few Hurricanes, and the Hurricane was par at best and out-turned at worst by Bf109s. There was no saving the Battle of France under these conditions.

                Even so they did manage to kill a surprising number of Luftwaffe aircraft.

                If 4 .50s is anemic how is 8 .30s not pathetic?

                First off, I didn't say the four 50s are "anemic", that was someone else
                Eight 303s worked great in chopping down anything flying, it wasn't at all pathetic.
                If you want to dispute that, go work out the relative throw weight difference, that would be an interesting comparison.

                Suggest an alternative, Rommel 2.0.

                https://i.imgur.com/selyT9C.jpg

                Considering the ETO the only worthwhile theater is not balanced. Its moronic.

                I gave my reasons why. Either give a rational rebuttal or frick off.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The British made the right decision. Imagine, with hindsight, you had two paths:

                1. Try to save France. Germany stays allied with Soviet Union. Gets all the raw materials they need, etc.. France gets devastated even if you win AND you still have to deal with the Soviets.

                2. Let France fall. Fight on your own terms in the BoB until Hitler betrays Stalin. You now have a Russia and Germany grudge match with massive casualties for both. No more fuel and raw materials for Hitler while you get to sit back, build your army, etc.. and let the two morons kill one another.

                I know which one I'd pick. Hitler might as well have been working for the British.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm and idiot who can't think critically

                You said the ETO was the only theater with major aircraft development. You moron, the eastern front involved the same fricking German aircraft as the ETO and many of the same allied aircraft. It even had many of the same German pilots.

                The Pacific had a lot of development. I'm not sure how you can seriously consider the Corsair the same as a wildcat. The Avenger the same as a Dauntless. The Ki-44 the same as the Ki-84 or the B5N the same as the B6N.

                If you want more, go read a book. Or hell go watch youtube. Even that tier of history is above your level if you seriously think only the ETO saw technical development.

                You are an irredeemable idiot.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So were you agreeing or disagreeing that the early 109s and spitfires weren’t exactly packing heavy armament relative to the wildcat?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it wasn't at all pathetic.
                >If you want to dispute that, go work out the relative throw weight difference, that would be an interesting comparison
                disagreeing, obviously

                https://i.imgur.com/z5ZDugZ.jpg

                >I'm and idiot who can't think critically

                You said the ETO was the only theater with major aircraft development. You moron, the eastern front involved the same fricking German aircraft as the ETO and many of the same allied aircraft. It even had many of the same German pilots.

                The Pacific had a lot of development. I'm not sure how you can seriously consider the Corsair the same as a wildcat. The Avenger the same as a Dauntless. The Ki-44 the same as the Ki-84 or the B5N the same as the B6N.

                If you want more, go read a book. Or hell go watch youtube. Even that tier of history is above your level if you seriously think only the ETO saw technical development.

                You are an irredeemable idiot.

                >many of the same allied aircraft
                weasel words
                we both know the Soviets got the obsolete shit first
                also, Soviet pilots

                >The Pacific had a lot of development
                and is any of it relevant to the P-40's performance? do you remember the topic of discussion here?

                >Ki-44
                >1942 production: 131
                lol
                >Ki-84
                >First battle: Leyte Gulf
                lmao
                >B6N
                >First battle: November 1943
                kek

                yeah so how is any of that relevant to the P-40 again?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                The French had more airframes on paper than they had pilots to man them; the British kept a large number of Hurricanes based in Britain because the French were already falling apart; this was the reason for the low sortie rate. Also, at this point the RAF had too many obsolete Gladiators, too few Hurricanes, and the Hurricane was par at best and out-turned at worst by Bf109s. There was no saving the Battle of France under these conditions.

                Even so they did manage to kill a surprising number of Luftwaffe aircraft.

                [...]
                First off, I didn't say the four 50s are "anemic", that was someone else
                Eight 303s worked great in chopping down anything flying, it wasn't at all pathetic.
                If you want to dispute that, go work out the relative throw weight difference, that would be an interesting comparison.

                Suggest an alternative, Rommel 2.0.

                [...]
                I gave my reasons why. Either give a rational rebuttal or frick off.

                >the P-40 was good okay, in all the shithole theaters of the war except the one where it was firstly irrelevant and then replaced by the P-47 and the P-51

                >the Zero wasn't the only Jap fighter okay, there was also the even shittier Ki-27 and a couple dozen Hayabusa protoypes, that's totally relevant

                [...]
                I'm balanced
                That tends to piss off fanboys on all sides

                >now you are moving to goalposts to the ETO
                Not moving anything; I've always regarded the ETO as the only real test
                >Because there's no other theatre where fighter development was of great significance

                >solid record everywhere except the ETO
                where technical development was key
                >did well in Africa
                where the DAK was outnumbered and starved of fuel
                >The eastern front
                where anything was better than Russian shitbirds
                >Pacific, Burma and China
                where the Japs were tied to one one-trick pony whose inferiories have been amply discussed ITT

                >that lack of escort contributed to heavy losses which convinced bomber command to switch to safer but less effective night bombing
                the Battle of Britain demonstrated that unless a very great difference in fighter force could be achieved, daytime bombing was suboptimal and unsustainable.
                The Spitfire worked fine once it went across the Channel.
                However, even if the Bf109 had more range and even if the Spitfire had more range, neither opponent would have bested the other, the two fighter forces were too closely matched.
                This early in the war, range was not operationally relevant.

                >It had bomb shackles
                Big fricking deal.

                >This is why the US invests in the largest fleet of tankers in the world. It's a mission enabler
                >Because range is one of the most operationally relevant aspects of a combat aircraft.
                Fine, but you are using a modern analogy.
                We are discussing WW2.
                Demonstrate to me how the P-40's superior range gave it better performance in the ETO over the Spitfire and Bf109.

                >the P-40 always had a multirole capability. Its contemporaries did not
                In what way?
                Leave range aside for the moment.

                [...]
                The P-40 was better than the F4F I think. Not sure about the Hellcat.

                >yeah so how is any of that relevant to the P-40 again?

                You tell me. You've been moving the goalposts the whole time dodging the point. Got a good laugh you think I'm the one that's off topic.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, you seem to have forgotten this post:

                >No in this particular case; American fighters lagged behind British, German and Japanese early on

                I disagree. The main difference between the American frontline fighter at the start of the war, the P-40 and the frontline British and German fighters, Spitfire and Me-109 are that the Euros were more dedicated short range tactical fighters. They were smaller and single purpose. The P-40 was a larger and more versatile aircraft. It could carry a decent sized bomb. It had a heavier armament. Spitfire was intended to be a short ranged interceptor. It had no range at all and was all performance. The Me-109 wasn't a dedicated interceptor but was a small and extreme aircraft. Both were much lighter and shorter ranged. Better "pilot's" aircraft but also not very flexible. They had something like half the effective combat range.

                So I really think its not a case of technical inferiority but the planes were just built to different ideas of what a fighter should be. Almost every US fighter was a multirole fighter bomber. Compared to everyone else who aren't the Bongs or the Germans and the P-40 is world class. Clearly better than anything the French, Soviets or the minor nations had in 1940. The French were panic buying P-36s at the time.

                As for naval aviation, the only side that was comparable was Japan. British naval aviation was old and shit from RAF negligence before the war and meddling during the war. The best British carrier aircraft of the war were American made. The Germans didn't seriously have naval aviation. And neither did anyone else.

                Everything you said about tactics and training is true. Everyone had to learn how much they were lacking. Japan had an early advantage there because their pilots did have some combat experience. Their training pipeline was also shit and they never fixed that so once the vets were dead or captured they only had trash pilots. Germany had a similar but not as serious problem

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope. My point stands. The P-40 is not technically inferior to either the spitfire or 109. It was designed to different specifications.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                And with the benefit of combat experience from the Spitfire.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Italians even reverted to using battleships to escort tankers and eventually there was a surplus of fuel in west Libya. Oil supply was not under Rommel's control true but not advancing past his operational limits certainly was.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >eventually there was a surplus of fuel in west Libya
                By which time the DAK had already been defeated at El Alamein
                Too little too late
                >Oil supply was not under Rommel's control true but not advancing past his operational limits certainly was
                I really dunno
                Consider that if he had concentrated instead nearer his supply lines, the British would have had too much breathing room to rearm with Grants and Shermans, and would have further destroyed his Air Force, before taking the initiative and attacking anyway. The Luftwaffe in Africa was nearly ignored, priority went to the Soviet front.
                I don't have an answer, but I won't condemn Rommel out of hand.

                The British made the right decision. Imagine, with hindsight, you had two paths:

                1. Try to save France. Germany stays allied with Soviet Union. Gets all the raw materials they need, etc.. France gets devastated even if you win AND you still have to deal with the Soviets.

                2. Let France fall. Fight on your own terms in the BoB until Hitler betrays Stalin. You now have a Russia and Germany grudge match with massive casualties for both. No more fuel and raw materials for Hitler while you get to sit back, build your army, etc.. and let the two morons kill one another.

                I know which one I'd pick. Hitler might as well have been working for the British.

                Definitely
                Churchill spent all his time personally pleading with Reynaud, Weygand and Petain to fight, they refused. They refused to use their army but refused to evacuate. It's as if they wanted to surrender in place and get it over with. They called for de Gaulle's arrest when he began siphoning troops and equipment overseas.

                >At Midway, he didn't know how to use altitude to his advantage
                The Wildcat had a lower service ceiling than the Zero. Taking advantage of that was one of the most successful tactics Japanese pilots used

                True
                I might be too harsh on that score.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >By which time the DAK had already been defeated at El Alamein
                The point being it was nowhere near El Alamein and more fuel would have been used getting it there via truck than would have been supplied, it also being outside of the range of most axis trucks. Choosing to fight beyond his operational range was on him, and not understanding small (damaged) ports further East wouldn't improve supply issues very much is an obvious failing of a tactical commander promoted to near-strategic levels of command.

                >Consider that if he had concentrated instead nearer his supply lines, the British would have had too much breathing room to rearm with Grants and Shermans, and would have further destroyed his Air Force, before taking the initiative and attacking anyway. The Luftwaffe in Africa was nearly ignored, priority went to the Soviet front.
                >I don't have an answer, but I won't condemn Rommel out of hand.
                Probably the answer was just to advance as far as was practical and then move to a defensive stance. And perhaps make a large effort to take over the supply and training of the Italian troops if that could be wrangled politically. The longer allied resources and manpower was tied up the better and italian troops would be more use as a force in being than an ineffective attacking force. But yes it's probably not a winnable scenario for the Axis unless the Italians got their shit together.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >range isn’t operationally relevant because it wasn’t a major factor in the Battle of Britain, which is the only relevant theatre in my mind

                >where the Japs were tied to one one-trick pony whose inferiories have been amply discussed ITT
                >the zero was the only Japanese fighter

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the P-40 was good okay, in all the shithole theaters of the war except the one where it was firstly irrelevant and then replaced by the P-47 and the P-51

                >the Zero wasn't the only Jap fighter okay, there was also the even shittier Ki-27 and a couple dozen Hayabusa protoypes, that's totally relevant

                I can't tell if you are a Teaboo or a Wehraboo but you are an idiot.

                I'm balanced
                That tends to piss off fanboys on all sides

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Considering the ETO the only worthwhile theater is not balanced. Its moronic.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm balanced
                >the ETO is the only theatre that matters
                That's not balanced, that's moronation. None of the front-line German or UK fighters would do well in the PTO for either the US or Japan.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >None of the front-line German or UK fighters would do well in the PTO for either the US or Japan
                Fricking Hurricanes dabbed on Zeroes, so that's not strictly true.

                But I get that you're referring to range. Fine, I have no objections to that. The P-40's greater range becomes relevant here. But that doesn't change the fact that this says nothing for its other qualities. A fricking Hurricane with droptanks - the least manouevreable of all the fighters discussed here - would have raped Zeroes, so what does that say?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Fricking Hurricanes dabbed on Zeroes, so that's not strictly true.
                In what fricking world? Much of the early fighting the Hurricane did was against Ki-43s, not A6Ms, and even against those with their pathetic armament it wasn't doing well. I will give you that generally the IJAAF and IJN outnumbered defending Commonwealth squadrons by a large margin in 1941-42, but even then both of them are better performers than the Hurricane. What it really comes down to is who sees who first and who has the altitude advantage. Everything else is secondary and subject to the requirements of the theatre, and even with droptanks a Hurricane would not be able to perform the escort missions and fighter sweeps that the IJN and IJAAF were doing.

                The British made the right decision. Imagine, with hindsight, you had two paths:

                1. Try to save France. Germany stays allied with Soviet Union. Gets all the raw materials they need, etc.. France gets devastated even if you win AND you still have to deal with the Soviets.

                2. Let France fall. Fight on your own terms in the BoB until Hitler betrays Stalin. You now have a Russia and Germany grudge match with massive casualties for both. No more fuel and raw materials for Hitler while you get to sit back, build your army, etc.. and let the two morons kill one another.

                I know which one I'd pick. Hitler might as well have been working for the British.

                Britain did try to save France. That's why all those men had to be evacuated from Dunkirk. They made their attempt, and after that there was no feasible option to land in France again until 1942 with Sledgehammer, by which time the USSR and Germany were already at war.

                The Italians even reverted to using battleships to escort tankers and eventually there was a surplus of fuel in west Libya. Oil supply was not under Rommel's control true but not advancing past his operational limits certainly was.

                This. Generally, the Italians did a pretty good job of keeping DAK supplied. The larger issue was that the ports did not have the infrastructure to handle the amount of shipping required for Rommel to actually go on a long offensive, nor did the infrastructure exist between Tripoli and Alexandria to support that endeavor. It doesn't matter how many ships you send if you can only unload 6 at a time and the other 20 in the convoy are praying not to get hit by UK aircraft or subs while they wait their turn.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ki-43s, not A6Ms, and even against those with their pathetic armament it wasn't doing well
                not Zeroes, Ki-27s, I'm sorry I misspoke
                in my mind the Ki-27 just translates to "Army Zero" for all intents and purposes so I've gotten lazy
                no, the Hurricanes did well with a KDR of over 2:1, and eight .303s is not pathetic when they hit. (the problem is when they don't hit.)

                >What it really comes down to is who sees who first and who has the altitude advantage. Everything else is secondary and subject to the requirements of the theatre
                broadly true

                >even with droptanks a Hurricane would not be able to perform the escort missions and fighter sweeps
                with droptanks Hurricanes could nearly double its range, that's close to Zero range.

                >the ports did not have the infrastructure
                also true
                and what infra they did have got blown up by the RAF and FAA

                .303 and .50 are not equal. More goes into armament utility and effect on target than mere throw weight. A .50 projectile is going to be going faster, over a longer range, with more energy behind it. When it hits any part of an aircraft it has a greater chance of punching through and continuing without being deflected. There’s a reason solely rifle caliber armed aircraft fell out of favor incredibly quickly, with most late war aircraft replacing them with heavy machine guns.

                >with most late war aircraft replacing them with
                20mm cannon

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                *Ki-43 not Ki-27
                okay I'm getting tired lol
                it's been fun but I'll leave soon

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The 109s got MG131s and the spitfires got M2s to replace the .30s.

                >in my mind the Ki-43 just translates to "Army Zero" for all intents and purposes so
                It really shouldn’t, they’re very different aircraft.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the spitfires got M2s to replace the .30s
                only sometime later, and with the addition of Hispano 20mm
                eventually the 4x Hispano 20mm was preferred

                The thing is logically they should have been constrained by the same ports just as badly, unless they had trucks with better range or something. Or they just moved extremely slowly and stockpiled stuff I suppose.

                >they just moved extremely slowly and stockpiled stuff
                this
                Cairo was turned into a massive production and logistics facility

                It's me who said this. 8*303 and 4*50 are comparable (shit). So is 2*rifle 2*20mm old (zero, 109e). The Germans and Soviets had some decent HMGs but the .50 was way too overweight for just a hole with no explosive effects.

                Against the opposition the Americans faced, the 8*303 with dewilde ammunition would unironically be much better.

                >8*303 and 4*50 are comparable
                not really
                The 12.7 mm AN/M2 had a cyclic rate of 600–800 rounds per minute, let's assume 700
                A two second burst would be ~23 rounds
                Four AN/M2 would be 92 rounds; six would be 138 rounds

                The 7.7mm Browning had a cyclic rate of 1,100-1,200 rounds per minute, let's assume 1,100
                A two second burst would be ~36 rounds
                Eight Brownings would be 288 rounds

                the throw weight from the Hurricane and early Spitfires was immense and calculated to do enough damage to a small target area to chop down any bomber flying. it also did fine against Bf109s, Bf110s and unsurprisingly, Zeroes.

                the Hispano 20mm shell however became the pinnacle of fighter armament even into the Cold War

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do wonder if the British would have inevitably hit the opposite problem trying to fully push the Italians out of Libya if not for Operation Torch and being able to strike out from the other coast too. Though to be fair if they'd gained full air and naval supremacy eventually (the RM was pretty competent so this would have taken time without the Americans) I suppose they really could just chain-unload large ships all day.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I do wonder if the British would have inevitably hit the opposite problem
                They did, earlier in the war, when chasing the Italians out and getting beaten back by Rommel.
                That is why the African campaign is often described as a swinging pendulum, with the front line going back and forth and each side experiencing the problems of lengthening logistics.

                However, after getting beaten once by Rommel, the British had realised the importance of desert logistics and their approach post-El Alamein was methodical and amply supplied. So I don't think they'd have made the same mistake twice - indeed they never again in the war overextended themselves, with one GLARING exception:

                Market-Garden.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The thing is logically they should have been constrained by the same ports just as badly, unless they had trucks with better range or something. Or they just moved extremely slowly and stockpiled stuff I suppose.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I can’t tell if you’re a troll, moronic, or genuinely ignorant.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I can't tell if you are a Teaboo or a Wehraboo but you are an idiot.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The differences in design have everything to do with doctrine and the war the designers expected the aircraft to fight
                I'd like to interject that an awful lot of it was based on limits to technology and engineering--particularly, engine development.

                Fighters started off the '30s having trouble keeping up with bombers. By 1945, even some piston-powered fighters were pushing the trans-sonic region in a steep dive. Most of that is due to the development of newer and more powerful piston engines (e.g., Merlin and Double Wasp).

                I would argue that that's a fair part of the reason why European fighters were smaller, or why Japanese fighters had no armor: limitations in national engine tech. In that sense, while doctrine did play an important role in design, available technology dictated what compromises had to be made in order to actually field something.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                More range also means more time to climb.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >British frontline fighter at the start of the war
              >Spitfire
              Not even the majority by the time of the Battle of Britain.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every single individual remotely considering himself as a historian will go on verses about how much the Americans were outclassed in the air early in the war.
    Yet the results of every single fricking engagement I have come across are anything short of inconclusive or maybe the Japs had a little bit more kd on average? I simply don't get it. I am such a fricking mad zero shill, its my favorite aircraft, yet its superior turn, armament, and allegedly best pilots in the world in the end did not mean jackshit. As soon as the Americans got a little bit of an edge, with the Akutan zero shit, kds fricking pluner and now even the F4Fs outkill the zero. With the F6F they basically mop the floor lol. You have like 10 zeroes against 2 F6Fs and 8 get shot down with the remaining crash landing on the way back.

    In the end its the engine that matters in an aircraft, this metric seems most credible after considering the pacific

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Le American fighters....le outmatched
      is a meme designed to denigrate American equipment in order to excuse training and doctrine failures and glorify the American fighting man.
      In reality, early war American equipment was largely superior to Japanese and German equipment, but early war American training and doctrine was kinda bad. Fricking Brewster Buffalos had the highest ratio of pilots to aces of any aircraft of all time, but no American aces.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >largely superior to Japanese and German equipment
        Thing is on paper this simply isn't the case. Focusing on the pacific, the F4F was on paper pretty ass when compared to a zero; every logical metric suggests that this should be the case. And then for no fricking reason its combat performance is pretty much on par from the get go, and as I said eventually even surpasses the zero once some sound doctrine takes precedent. Vessels too, on paper I would say IJN vessels of almost all types were better, but then again that did not seam to mean shit once actual combat started. Even though tbh the whole relevant part of the conflict actually saw quite limited naval engagements other than destroyers.
        This apparent superiority on paper surely helped with the meme.

        >highest ratio of pilots to aces of any aircraft of all time, but no American aces.
        not sure what you mean exactly.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Vessels too, on paper I would say IJN vessels of almost all types were better, but then again that did not seam to mean shit once actual combat started
          The fletcher class was very obviously superior to any japanese destroyer except meme super prototypes
          Even going by paper stats, it exceeded pretty much anything the japanese made

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct me if I'm wrong but the ship launched torpedoes the US had, weren't they also pretty shit? Not Mark 13 tier shit of course but compared to the long lance, again on paper, I'd say it is hard for anything to impress. Also I would say the Kagerō class was pretty on par with the Fletchers, again again (again) on paper.

            The answer is that the key to WW2 aerial combat is altitude, zoom, boom, and GTFO. Don't frick around with manoeuvreing. Fancy shooting is unreliable and too pilot-dependent. And dogfighting is a last resort, for when one is locked into a fight with an opponent of equal or superior speed.

            That's how Erich Hartmann did it, that's how the RAF eventually learned to do it, and that's how successful aircraft did it (e.g. deHavilland Mosquito)

            Jimmy Thach came up with a way to mitigate the weaknesses of the F4F in a turning fight with the Zero, making best use of its armour. Even so, he made a couple of mistakes that the RAF and Luftwaffe was aware of by then. At Midway, he didn't know how to use altitude to his advantage. His tactic was successful but still rooted in dogfight thinking. Also he was still thinking of sharpshooting, whereas many British and German pilots instead flew as close as possible to ensure hits even with short bursts.

            It was only later on that American pilots in general learned to zoom and boom, and even later still that they learned the need for heavy armament, to deliver maximum lead in minimum time onto the target. US fighter armament lagged for just about all of the war.

            >Fancy shooting is unreliable and too pilot-dependent
            If I ever kill myself someday this will be the reason. I find designs which came about with the sole reason of being incredible dogfighters to be some of the best machines man has made. And yet, as the Japanese found out, this was not the right way to wage areal combat.
            >You will never engage in glorious dogfights where pure skill and connection between you and your machine will determine who flies out alive
            >why live...

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I find designs which came about with the sole reason of being incredible dogfighters to be some of the best machines man has made. And yet, as the Japanese found out, this was not the right way to wage areal combat
              It's a coincidence
              Most of those machines which could dogfight well also had excellent speed and climb, and firepower. Obviously since this covers all bases, the result is an excellent machine.
              HOWEVER, there are key exceptions.

              The Zero and Ki-27 were fast and manoeuvreable, but had poor protection and firepower. This led to higher losses than expected, and higher ammo expenditure per kill - remember all those Zeroes running out of ammo at Midway? "Incredible dogfighters", yes, but not the "best".

              Then there's the deHavilland Mosquito. Arguably the single best aircraft of the war, it was out-turned by the Spitfire and Fw190, probably the Bf109 too. It was not at all a "dogfighter". However it could reliably beat all these fighters with zoom and boom tactics, which again are the surest tactics of WW2 air combat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >IJN and ammo capacity
                hhhh don't fricking even. Still wondering how 150 cannon rounds was all they could fit in their zeroes. Sure it reached 200 after the a6m5 (I think) but still, that was wayy too late and barely a solution. Doubling to 300 rounds for 20mm would have only added 20kg. Imagine if they had decided to completely scrap the moronic cabin MGs, a zero would lose 4 kilos for the gain of 150 20mm shots. Frick. To my knowledge this had nothing to do with the industrial capacity of Japan, just shit thinking. Imagining a zero with one of those IJA cannons makes me smile.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's not ammo *capacity* per se, but ammo *expenditure*, because once again the proven WW2 aerial combat tactic is
                >fly as close as possible to ensure hits even with short bursts

                The standard Zero model had two cannon with 60 rounds each and two machine-guns with I think 250 rounds each, and fought unarmoured against armoured opponents. This meant they had to keep their distance for safety, and snipe with a small stream of bullets, hitting armour, poking holes all over the airframe instead of inflicting devastating damage in one concentrated area, if not missing the aircraft entirely.

                The Hurricane had EIGHT .303 machine-guns in order
                >to deliver maximum lead in minimum time
                into a concentrated target zone, calculated to be enough to destroy any bomber in two seconds. That, and decent manoeuvreability, is what kept it from being totally obsolete even in 1944. It also achieved a 2+:1 KDR against Ki-27s.

                Later Spitfires had two 20mm cannon and four .303s; the P-51 had six .50s; the Thunderbolt had eight .50s; the Fw190 had two 15mm and four 20mm. Even till today, emphasis is on net RPM output. That's just the nature of air combat.

                More range also means more time to climb.

                >More range also means more time to climb
                Climb rate is more important.

                >British frontline fighter at the start of the war
                >Spitfire
                Not even the majority by the time of the Battle of Britain.

                >Not even the majority by the time of the Battle of Britain
                Still numbered about 1/4 to 1/3 of Fighter Command, and exclusively sent against Luftwaffe fighters.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >needing more than 1 round to bring down the enemy
                You bring shame upon the Heika Tennou.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not that the torpedoes were bad per say, everybody's torpedoes were hilariously outclassed by the IJN's. The main difference comes down to how the ships were intended to be used. Their design reflects this. The Fletchers were much more general purpose, and could do anti-aircraft and anti-submarine roles pretty well while still being dangerous surface combatants at closer ranges. The Fubuki class was top of the line when built in the '20s, but beyond that their destroyers were increasingly optimized for surface combat to make up for the battle line being treaty restricted. This meant that for surface warfare they were the best in the world bar none by WWII, but utterly anemic in the anti-aircraft role until the specialized Akizuki class. All of them were generally stuck in a late 1930s level for anti-submarine warfare, and didn't really improve in that regard until 1944.

              Neither the Zero nor the F4F were anything special and we're both pretty limited planes who would have been trashed in the ETO.

              Zero: mediocre engine and need for high range means it became a super light one trick pony. Mediocre armament due to old style 20mm as primary. Could be exposed easily.

              F4F also mediocre engine, but since not a one trick pony it could outperform the Zero in energy fights. At least it's armoured but .50s are generally a shit armament and only 4 of them is positively anemic. They only worked because of the Japanese paper plane tendency.

              If either of those pieces of trash came over Europe, they'd be beaten like a red headed stepchild by the Spit and 109. See how Marseille fricked the (superior to a F4F) P-40s unlubed.

              I disagree on the Zero. The range is the sole reason Japan was able to contest Guadalcanal, which was their best chance at getting a decisive defeat against the US. Its range wasn't just due to extreme weight-saving measures, the Sumitomo corp invented a new duralumin alloy that was lighter and stronger than the alloys currently in use. That's what really made the A6M's range and performance possible. It's utter nonsense that the F4F was superior in energy fighting, the A6M could do that just as well. The F4F's advantage was that, if the pilot was at altitude and in a completely untenable situation, diving out would typically save him. It would also remove him from the fight though.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The downside of the Long Lance was the requirement for oxygen generation and storage on-board ships. Didn't the IJN lose at least one cruiser to a fire in the torpedo storage area resulting from relatively light strafing?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                If I'm remembering right, Chokai at Samar was the one thought to be lost to light strafing or 5" gunfire detonating her torpedoes. Her wreck was found recently though, and her torpedo handling spaces were all intact. So she was able to jettison them before any detonated. I know Mikuma was destroyed by her torpedo spaces exploding at Midway, but she was also hit by at least 4 bombs and probably wasn't making it out from Midway anyways. Her captain really should have jettisoned the torpedoes after the collision with Mogami, but maybe he thought he'd be ok since Mikuma could still make decent speed. Mogami did jettison hers after the collision, and so didn't have any torpedoes to be detonated when she took her bomb hits. I know Chikuma also was able to jettison hers immediately before being hit at Santa Cruz and as a result didn't have a follow-on detonation.

                Generally, all navies knew torpedoes were volatile and susceptible to explode. That's part of why the US removed torpedoes from most of their heavy cruisers and went to more of a gunfire focus. I know Houston did still have hers at the outbreak of war but she jettisoned them early on in an air attack and never was able to resupply before her sinking.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The answer is that the key to WW2 aerial combat is altitude, zoom, boom, and GTFO. Don't frick around with manoeuvreing. Fancy shooting is unreliable and too pilot-dependent. And dogfighting is a last resort, for when one is locked into a fight with an opponent of equal or superior speed.

          That's how Erich Hartmann did it, that's how the RAF eventually learned to do it, and that's how successful aircraft did it (e.g. deHavilland Mosquito)

          Jimmy Thach came up with a way to mitigate the weaknesses of the F4F in a turning fight with the Zero, making best use of its armour. Even so, he made a couple of mistakes that the RAF and Luftwaffe was aware of by then. At Midway, he didn't know how to use altitude to his advantage. His tactic was successful but still rooted in dogfight thinking. Also he was still thinking of sharpshooting, whereas many British and German pilots instead flew as close as possible to ensure hits even with short bursts.

          It was only later on that American pilots in general learned to zoom and boom, and even later still that they learned the need for heavy armament, to deliver maximum lead in minimum time onto the target. US fighter armament lagged for just about all of the war.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At Midway, he didn't know how to use altitude to his advantage
            The Wildcat had a lower service ceiling than the Zero. Taking advantage of that was one of the most successful tactics Japanese pilots used

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can’t think of any Air Force except the IJA that advocated turn fighting in 1941. The aircraft Thach had access to couldn’t reliably out boom and zoom the zero, and at that point US aircraft were on the defensive and couldn’t count on an altitude advantage. At this point US pilots were unaware of the zero’s weakness in a dive, so the weave gave them something.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yet the results of every single fricking engagement I have come across are anything short of inconclusive or maybe the Japs had a little bit more kd on average?
      Looking only at k/d and performance sheets removes all context from the engagement. The single most important factors by far are who sees who first and who has the altitude advantage. In the carrier battles it was usually close because CAPs and escorts engaged at similar altitudes and made visual contact at about the same time. In the Solomons, despite the US and Japan losing about the same number of fighters to all causes from August to November, engagements tended to flipflop based on whether the coastwatchers got warning to Cactus fast enough. If the coastwatcher warning came in time, F4Fs would be at altitude and ready to hit the Japanese strike. If it didn't, the F4Fs were still scrambling and trying to climb and would get dived on by the escorting A6Ms. Even as late as February 1943, when the Corsair was now in theatre, you have instances like the Feb 14th Buin-Shortlands raid. 9 PB4Ys, 10 P-38Gs, and 12 Corsairs were engaged after the bomb run by 31 A6Ms and 11 Rufe floatplanes. Japan lost only 1 A6M, while the US lost 2 PB4Ys, 4 P-38s, and 2 Corsairs.

      >You forgot self-sealing fuel tanks, which was very important for not exploding in a fireball after taking a couple of rounds
      True to an extent, but generally overstated. Richard Dunn has a great book on this, literally called Exploding Fuel Tanks

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Boosting this reply because it really hits at the heart of the matter. The Wildcat's performance was extremely tied to the situations it was forced to fight in, fortunatly after the inital disasters in early war the USN learned how to deploy it to its strengths.

        To add on, I think we need to really look at the pacific air war as having 3 overarching phases, the conditions of these phases really having a big impact on the performance of the aircraft. In my mind these phases are, the Japanese Offensive Phase, Contested Attritional Phase, and Overwhelming US superiority phase.

        The date ranges for these being Start of the war up until Guadalcanl, Guadalcanal to either end of Tarawa, End of Tarawa to the End of the War.

        To charecterize these phases, I would have to say the Japanese Offensive phase was most like the European Theater in terms of how it was fought. Landbased Aircraft hitting preplanned land or sea targets. This phase was when the absolute overmatch of the Zero against most Western Aircraft on a purely statsheet comparison was most clear. But, at the same time this when the Western Allies fought in the most abjectly stupid way possible while the Japanese were at the peak of both the quality, quatity and coordination of their forces. All of which multiplied their deadliness.

        The most interesting phase in my mind is the Contested Attritional Phase, mostly because of how tenuous most of the combat was both in terms of range, and in terms of how very tiny advantages just absolutely snowballed. Additionally, both sides were relatively evenly matched in terms of quality and quatity. Advantages like Coast Watchers, Dumbo Missions, and code breaking had absolutely pivotal effects on the outcomes of tons of aerial battles. Infact, this is when we probably got the most aerial battles since both sides had both the planes and incentive to just throw everything on the line to win because of how knife edged things were on Guadalcanal and New Guinea.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Word Limit lol
          And finally, there was the overwhelming US Superiority phase which in all honesty, just isn't that interesting a phase to study. The US had an overwhelming, quatity, quality, experience, and coordination advantage and it shows. They kick the shit out the Japanese, but like you can probably throw away most of the stats racked up during this time period since the overmatch in all the soft and hard factors was so high it just multiplied into a total stomp.

          In short, study the phase between Guadalcanal and Tarawa thats when the interesting shit happens. lel

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the Japanese Offensive phase was most like the European Theater in terms of how it was fought. Landbased ... All of which multiplied their deadliness
          As I said, at this point, even Hurricanes and F4Fs driven by good pilots could decisively defeat the Japanese aircraft
          The Ki-27 and Zero are objectively sidegrades.

          I can’t think of any Air Force except the IJA that advocated turn fighting in 1941. The aircraft Thach had access to couldn’t reliably out boom and zoom the zero, and at that point US aircraft were on the defensive and couldn’t count on an altitude advantage. At this point US pilots were unaware of the zero’s weakness in a dive, so the weave gave them something.

          >The aircraft Thach had access to couldn’t reliably out boom and zoom the zero, and at that point US aircraft were on the defensive and couldn’t count on an altitude advantage. At this point US pilots were unaware of the zero’s weakness in a dive, so the weave gave them something
          True
          I may be too harsh on Thach
          Initially, I thought US aircraft should have stuck to as high an altitude as possible, zoom and boom, and then GTFO of dodge.
          However the Zero still would have height advantage as you say.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As I said, at this point, even Hurricanes and F4Fs driven by good pilots could decisively defeat the Japanese aircraft

            Oh sure thats not in doubt since we see it happen later on with regularity. It wasn't an aircraft issue at all on both sides, but an institutional situational one that made the Japanese so deadly. For one their Naval Aviator school was a lot better than their land based school so when initially Allied avaitors were facing them it was an extreme overmatch in terms of skill and doctrine versus the army aviatiors who were still good, just not as deadly as the IJN ones. Once the allies unfricked their doctrine and operations most of the early war planes that got speed boated put up pretty respectable performances. It was all an institutional error that led to the dogshit early war performances, this due in part to arrogance and racism in the minds of allied commanders pre-war. Once they learned to take things seriously the allies figured stuff out pretty quickly.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Early in the war your talking about Americans in F2As and P-36s and lacked the experience of their Japanese counterparts. One of the major problems the Japanese is that they often struggled to implement systems for lack of a better term. The lack of radio communication, radar direction, and an efficient way to train new pilots started to reap a heavy toll. The reason it didn’t mean jackshit is that every Japanese pilot loss was practically irreplaceable, and the lack of coordination meant that their veterans struggled to fight effectively. The army and navy sabotaging each other also snatched defeat from the jaws of victory many times in 1942.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The F4F had an extremely advanced (for the time) supercharging system, and overall good design.
    Its flaps were very simple and could not be ripped off from over speed.
    It was overbuilt and had stellar dive performance. It wasn't "overclassed" because it couldn't win in a dogfight on the deck with a Zero (which the pilots didn't do anyways)

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It's a real shame the French cats didn't make it in time for the Battle of France.

    Wouldn't have made much of a difference IMO. The issue the French had wasn't that their planes were all bad, it was that their doctrine and organisation just weren't up to the war they ended up fighting.

    The average fight over the Sedan sector in May 1940 was something along the line of half a dozen to a dozen french fighters going on patrol and then getting bounced by like 50 Messerschmitts flown by Pervitin-addled madmen. Having slightly better planes just wouldn't really make much of a difference there.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not a problem of doctrine. The RAF and FAF combined were outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Luftwaffe.

      >Demonstrate to me how the P-40's superior range gave it better performance in the ETO
      Not the same guy but I would definitely agree range is surprisingly critical, even when talking about Europe not the pacific. Best example I can give is with BF109s and the Battle of Britain. Simply put, BF109s had shit range and could not do much about it. When they had to fly sorties from France/lowlands to London, fight there, and then come back, pilots quickly found out the "fight there" part could only happen for a dozen or so minutes, maybe even less, otherwise they were forced to go for a nice swim on their way back. If the Germans had the P40 I believe it would have served them much better in that case, especially since we are still talking like 1940.
      Sorry for not giving an actual case where P40's range proved crucial, beyond my scope of knowledge, but what I said I would argue certainly stands

      >Best example I can give is with BF109s and the Battle of Britain
      I know. That's why I specified the P-40, and why I said earlier "operational relevance".

      Range was EXTREMELY relevant for escort fighters and in the Pacific. The P-51, the P-38, the Mosquito, Spits with droptanks, etc. But not at expense of other fighting qualities, which again is why the P-38 was considered unsuitable for the ETO.

      Why am I stressing the ETO? Because there's no other theatre where fighter development was of great significance. The Japs had to stick with the Zero more or less to the end. Their later planes saw little use and were mishandled by rookies.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That's not a problem of doctrine.

        The French and British between them outnumbered the Luftwaffe in fighter airframes, with the Luftwaffe's large bomber and gorund attack fleet making up the difference. It very much was a big doctrine problem. AdA doctrine and organisation were laid out to generate roughly one sortie per day per plane in a long war. Then the Luftwaffe came rolling in with a sprint effort having everyone flying 5+ sorties a day at the height of the battle. Allied fighters outnumbered German ones on paper, and yet found themselves steeply outnumbered in the air.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither the Zero nor the F4F were anything special and we're both pretty limited planes who would have been trashed in the ETO.

    Zero: mediocre engine and need for high range means it became a super light one trick pony. Mediocre armament due to old style 20mm as primary. Could be exposed easily.

    F4F also mediocre engine, but since not a one trick pony it could outperform the Zero in energy fights. At least it's armoured but .50s are generally a shit armament and only 4 of them is positively anemic. They only worked because of the Japanese paper plane tendency.

    If either of those pieces of trash came over Europe, they'd be beaten like a red headed stepchild by the Spit and 109. See how Marseille fricked the (superior to a F4F) P-40s unlubed.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Marseille
      was a wizard tho, that's not entirely fair

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >mediocre engine
      The R-1830 was decent for 1940. It had a higher power output per liter than the contemporary BMW 801 and is about the same as the Sakae 21 used in the A6M2.
      It would easily outperform earlier A6Ms without the dual-stage supercharger at higher altitude.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The early 109s and spitfires weren’t exactly packing heavy armament either. It also comes down to the fact that the zero and wildcat were carrier fighters, with all the tradeoffs that that entails.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Spitfires and Zeros fought in 1941 in the Pacific. The Zero came out on top.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mainly due to green RAAF pilots, the effect of which has been discussed above. And that was in 1942. There were no Spitfires in the Pacific in the 23 days of 1941 that the British were at war with Japan.
        Hurricanes fought the Zero in 1942. The Hurricane came out on top.

        The early 109s and spitfires weren’t exactly packing heavy armament either. It also comes down to the fact that the zero and wildcat were carrier fighters, with all the tradeoffs that that entails.

        109s had cannon. Early Spitfires had eight .303 machine guns, same as the Hurricane.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          If 4 .50s is anemic how is 8 .30s not pathetic?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's me who said this. 8*303 and 4*50 are comparable (shit). So is 2*rifle 2*20mm old (zero, 109e). The Germans and Soviets had some decent HMGs but the .50 was way too overweight for just a hole with no explosive effects.

            Against the opposition the Americans faced, the 8*303 with dewilde ammunition would unironically be much better.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              .303 and .50 are not equal. More goes into armament utility and effect on target than mere throw weight. A .50 projectile is going to be going faster, over a longer range, with more energy behind it. When it hits any part of an aircraft it has a greater chance of punching through and continuing without being deflected. There’s a reason solely rifle caliber armed aircraft fell out of favor incredibly quickly, with most late war aircraft replacing them with heavy machine guns.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                .30 and .50 are not equal, but you get twice the .30 for .50. Your argument might hold weight for a purpose build light aircraft HMG like a mg131 or the m3 browning, but not the m2 browning.

                20mm replaced both of them because a shell bringing a boom outperforms a bullet by far. However in between a .30 and the American overweight .50, the .50 is a sidegrade. Bongs went with 2*303 and 1*20 in the spits and then replaced the 303s with a .50 not because of better performance, but closer ballistic profile to the 20mm. The browning 50 was just American cope because they Black personed up their Hispanos.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                And 2 .30s isn’t worth a .50. The 13x64b was also an inferior round to .50bmg.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I estimate the worth about as much.

                However the German 13mm system was superior. The round itself might be lower energy yes, but fired at reasonable accuracy from a lighter gun. The cowling MG131s replaced rifle caliber MGs and we're centerline to boot, the Browning was absolute horseshit with 400 rpm when synchronised.

                And since the ballistic performance was good enough and the target effect in 99% of cases was the same ("13mm hole") carrying a weight and accuracy (remember, wing mounting sucks, who cares if your brownings can reach a bit further out if the moment you try you're out of convergence?) penalty for the Brownings was pointless.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder picrel literally sunk more tonnage of axis shipping than any other allied naval aircraft. WW2 naval aircraft seemed to benefit a ton more from doctrine and logistics for some reason.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Axis navy got dicked by a fricking biplane, never let them forget.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw the autistic bong proceeds to flood and kill the thread about war birds/tanks.
    hide

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Now for fricks sake, if this thread is not evidence we need a /war board I don't know what is. Half of the threads on /k talk about conflicts, mentioning weapons used in them, not weapons, mentioning conflicts they were used in. This site desperately needs a damn war board. The plus side is it will contain all the Ukraine threads from all fricking boards. What do we need to do to make this heard?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      /k/ IS a war board
      it was only during peacetime that it became gun gacha board

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    F-4s did badly to start with, but the airmen managed to adapt to take advantage of their aircraft's advantages and the zeroes' flaws.

    Pilots would fly together with one aircraft deliberately baiting the zero and forcing it to fly directly at their wingman, who would be able to take shots at it.

    The American pilots trained extensively in air to air gunnery and their M2 50 cals provided an ideal blend of a good fire rate, long trigger time and good ballistics to acheive a high hit probability even in these kinds of high angle deflection shots.
    The zeroes themselves, without armor or self sealing tanks, were vulnerable to even light damage, and even if they got away there was a good chance they might have to ditch on long missions after sustaining fuel leaks.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *