Wildcat and the Zero

[jdarocha]

I am under the impression that at the initial phase of the Pacific war the Japanese Zero was a superior fighter than the Wildcat. I know the Wildcat was better armored but that made it slower and less maneuverable than the Zero. Can anyone speak to how the Zero performed against the Wildcat during the start of the Pacific War. For example, if there had been 2 Squadrons of Wildcats airborne at Pearl Harbour during the Japanese attack would the Zero's have been able to defend their dive and torpedo bombers from them.
Thanks again
Halder

[prattaa]

If you compare fighter losses at Coral Sea and Midway the F4F did quite well. At Coral Sea during Shoho attack F4Fs shot down several Zeroes without loss but the next day VF2 got roughed up attacking Shokaku while flying low and slow escorting torpedo planes. Most Midway F4F losses were from VF8 disastrous escort mission running out of fuel without even seeing the enemy. VF3 led by Jimmy Thach destroyed several A6M for the loss of one pilot escorting VT3 in what was mainly a defensive battle for them. Several more Hiryu Zeroes were downed by F4Fs during the Yorktown attack. It's also important to remember that the Navy emphasized deflection shooting more than most.

At the start of war authorized VF strength was 16 or 18 planes if memory serves. Within a year the USN would double that which matched IJN fighter strength from the start. Organization of VF squads in 1941 was poor at best (no self sealing tanks, armor, or even factory fitted gunsights) so they would have not been much help at Pearl Harbor in my opinion. They were facing six of the best trained and led fleet carrier air groups in the world.

I would highly recommend John Lundstrom's The First Team to anybody interested in navy fighter combat from Pearl Harbor through Santa Cruz.

[IronBadger]

If my memory serves me right, I read from Ian W Toll's "Pacific Crucible" that the Zero was a remarkable aircraft, capable of maneuvers, speeds and climbs the Wildcat could only dream of. Several firsthand pilot accounts described enviously how the Zeros danced in the skies. I got the understanding that one-on-one the wildcat's was easily outmaneuvered, but Wildcat's armor helped to mitigate this. Toll describes in the book how the US navy pilots developed specific team formations and tactics that were very effective against the Zero. Don't remember the specifics anymore though, sorry. I'm quite positive a nice debate on the issue is just a quick googling away (: I remember playing OoB on the Japanese side and being very disappointed with the performance of the Zero (; maybe its better for game balance, since air superiority is so important.

So considering the question, would Wildcats have made a difference at Pearl Harbor, my guess is no, since there was not much knowledge of how to deal with the superior maneuverability and very skilled pilots of the Zeros. Also the surprise was quite total.

My thanks to prattaa for an expert answer! I should check that book out...

That Ian Toll's book I mentioned was an excellent companion to playing the Pacific campaigns, some very well written history covering both sides. Made the game come to life!

[kondi754]

I read American pilots feel fear of Mistubishi Zero for the first year of the war in the Pacific. Rarely occurred to duels between sea-fighters due to the nature of aircraft carrier's battles. Most of the fighters were left to cover aircraft carriers, so fought mainly with torpedo planes and dive-bombers. In addition, during i. e. battle of Midway US fighters lost their way on the target (Japan fleet) and couldn't help too much its bombers.
In mid-1942 alone A6M2 Zero (piloted by the boatswain's Koga from small carrier "Ryujo") was forced to land on a deserted island in the Aleutians (Akutan Island). The aircraft intercepted the Americans and thoroughly investigated. Then they discovered it's not armored and - most importantly - it lacks power (especially during a dive) and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks!!!.
During the attack on Pearl Harbour was shot down 8 Zeros.
Zero never achieved dominance over Wildcat but successfully fought P-36, P-40, F2A Buffalo and Hurricane.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Almost always in aircraft design, there has to be a sacrifice. Or more realistically, a lot of them. As a result, fighters are often superior in one aspect, and do extremely well in a battle that depends on this aspect. When faced with battles that need other attributes more than the one they were designed for, a fighter we consider as 'good' is simply better at dealing with its disadvantages than one that we consider 'bad'. Given the right circumstances, even obsolete stuff can beat a superior plane (I read somewhere that a WWI plane engine was so weak that a modern heat seeking missile wouldn't be able to find it, hence making the WWI plane a victor in a 1-on-1).

The Zero was designed from the start to focus on manoeuvrability. In this, it outclassed every other plane until about late 1942 - including the Bf 109, Hurricane, P-40 etc. This made it very suitable for the surprise attacks that Japan launched so many of in the first 6 months of the war, and is the reason Allied pilots feared it.

As has been mentioned by another poster, the thing was barely armoured at all (think WWI levels of armour). This was necessary for it to achieve the rapid turning and high speed it had, and went well with the intended way of fighting the war. Of course, America didn't want to give up after 6 months.

I know substantially less about the F4F Wildcat, but it was slower and turned more poorly so it could have more guns (?) and armour. This was suitable for how America intended to fight the war. Because America was winning the war, that was the doctrine that got used. The Zero was simply not the best design for that type of fighting.

I still don't understand why the Japs decided to design the A7M in the same way they did the Zero - little armour and high speed (when the Bearcat came along, high speed was pretty much useless unless you were talking about a supersonic jet).

- BNC

[kondi754]

Postby BiteNibbleChomp » 26 Sep 2016 13:12

...The Zero was designed from the start to focus on manoeuvrability...

Manoeuvrability and long range.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

How did its range compare with other fighters, such as the 109 and Spitfire? I wasn't aware that there was substantial difference.

- BNC

[kondi754]

Zero A6M2 (Pearl Harbour, Coral Sea, Midway, naval battles at Salomon Islands) - range 2350 km (with additional tank)
Bf 109 E-3, F-4 - 660 km (850 km with additional tanks)
FW 190 A-4 - 900 km
Spitfire Mk.I, III - 636 km
Hurricane Mk.I, II - 845 km
F4F Wildcat - 2000 km (with additional tank)
F6F Hellcat - 1600km (with tank)

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Postby BiteNibbleChomp » 26 Sep 2016 13:12

...The Zero was designed from the start to focus on manoeuvrability...

Manoeuvrability and long range.

Zero A6M2 (Pearl Harbour, Coral Sea, Midway, naval battles at Salomon Islands) - range 2350 km (with additional tank)
Bf 109 E-3, F-4 - 660 km (850 km with additional tanks)
FW 190 A-4 - 900 km
Spitfire Mk.I, III - 636 km
Hurricane Mk.I, II - 845 km
F4F Wildcat - 2000 km (with additional tank)
F6F Hellcat - 1600km (with tank)

Fair enough.

- BNC