Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sinboto

Ok so I think I'm done with fighters on IJN carriers for a bit

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,072
[SVER]
Beta Testers
3,811 posts
10,183 battles

just lost 3/4ths of a fighter squadron to a scout fighter in open water,I'm done, that's just sad. I'll pick um back up at T7. (or maybe just go with the american line?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
329 posts
4,774 battles

So... what tier was this? And what ship were you going up against? US cruisers have excellent AA and they can rip Japanese fighters and bombers alike in halves... the Scout fighter is just a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

To be fair, IRL Japanese aircraft were hilariously bad.

 

 

The number of people in this thread who subscribe to the "super zero myth" is astonishing.

Edited by supershutze
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[SLDF]
Beta Testers
222 posts
1,586 battles

some float fighters are really tough - they can eat a bogus' fighters like popcorn

525bff8c_happy-i-see-what-you-did-there.png

525bff8c_happy-i-see-what-you-did-there.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[SLDF]
Beta Testers
222 posts
1,586 battles

To be fair, IRL Japanese aircraft were hilariously bad.

 

You are either oblivious to actual history or just talking out of your butt.

 

The Japanese Zeroes were some of the best fighters ever built.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
7 posts
3,311 battles

to see the flip side though, I just had my langly's fully upgrade fighters with dogfighting ability go up against a group from a zuiho and lost all 6 planes without him losing one of his 4

Edited by Steve_Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,072
[SVER]
Beta Testers
3,811 posts
10,183 battles

So... what tier was this? And what ship were you going up against? US cruisers have excellent AA and they can rip Japanese fighters and bombers alike in halves... the Scout fighter is just a bonus.

 

T5 IJN carrier and I wasn't in range of the omahas' (T5) AA guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,829 posts
6,653 battles

 

You are either oblivious to actual history or just talking out of your butt.

 

The Japanese Zeroes were some of the best fighters ever built.

 

While unmatched in manueverability, the Zeroes slowly became obsolete due to their low top speed.  

 

In addition, they were extremely vulnerable.  In order for them to be obtain high maneuverability, they had to be as light as possible.  So light that they lacked armor.  I believe someone likened them to "fuel tanks with wings."  

 

But until the US aviators had more experience fighting them and new fighters were developed capable of boom and zoom tactics, these fighters were unmatched.

Edited by Misniso
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[SLDF]
Beta Testers
222 posts
1,586 battles

 

While unmatched in manueverability, the Zeroes slowly became obsolete due to their low top speed.  

 

In addition, they were extremely vulnerable.  In order for them to be obtain high maneuverability, they had to be as light as possible.  So light that they lacked armor.  I believe someone likened them to "fuel tanks with wings."  

 

But until the US aviators had more experience fighting them and new fighters were developed capable of boom and zoom tactics, these fighters were unmatched.

 

The latter was pretty much my point. It took a fair amount of time for the Allied pilots to adapt and become competent against the Zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

 

You are either oblivious to actual history or just talking out of your butt.

 

The Japanese Zeroes were some of the best fighters ever built.

 

They were abysmal combat aircraft: if you think they are good, you don't understand the A6M("zero") series.

And I'll tell you why.

 

First and foremost, The A6M series was a result of some pretty ridiculous requirements set by the IJN for a carrier borne fighter. In order to meet these requirements, Mitsubishi had to make an enormous number of compromises in the design.

 

The A6M had a weak engine. 870HP at a time when other nations were using 1200+HP engines on their fighters. This however did make it very fuel efficient(Important for the range requirement), but limited its top speed. Furthermore this engine was gravity fed, meaning it would stall if subjected to zero or negative G maneuvers.

 

The A6M had a very light airframe and lacked any cockpit or engine armor. This was required for a decent power/weight ratio, thanks to the poor engine power. This, unfortunately, made the A6M very fragile and gave it a very low VNE along with poor pilot survivability and poor performance in energy tactics.

 

The A6M lacked self sealing fuel tanks. Any damage to the fuel tank would often prove inevitably fatal, as the aircraft would run out of fuel before it could return to an airfield or carrier.

 

The A6M, despite it's excellent turn rate, literally couldn't roll to save it's life.

 

The armament wasn't very good either: Two 7mm MG's with a low rate of fire in the nose, and two 20mm Cannons with extremely limited ammo(less than 5 seconds) in the wings.

 

 

The A6M, in summary, is a reasonably maneuverable aircraft with a low top speed, poor performance in energy tactics, abysmal pilot survivability, and the propensity to fail after suffering damage other fighter aircraft would consider superficial.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[SLDF]
Beta Testers
222 posts
1,586 battles

 

They may have been shot down with minimal damage, but they dished out plenty before succumbing. Their maneuverability made them difficult to hit, while simultaneously getting in behind their targets to shred whatever they could. Here are a few excerpts from [http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/a6mzero.htm]

 

A6M Zero - Operational History:

Entering service in 1940, the A6M became known as the Zero based on its official designation of Type 0 Carrier Fighter. In early 1940, the first A6M2, Model 11 Zeros arrived in China and quickly proved themselves as the best fighter in the conflict. Fitted with a 950 hp Nakajima Sakae 12 engine, the Zero swept Chinese opposition from the skies. With the new engine, the aircraft exceeded its design specifications and a new version with folding wingtips, the A6M2, Model 21, was pushed into production for carrier use.

For much of World War II, the Model 21 was the version of the Zero that was encountered by Allied aviators. A superior dogfighter than the early Allied fighters, the Zero was able to out-maneuver its opposition. 

...the Allies benefited from the Zero's complete lack of protection as a single burst of fire was generally enough to down the aircraft.

This contrasted with Allied fighters, such as the P-40 Warhawk and F4F Wildcat, which though less maneuverable, were extremely rugged and difficult to bring down. Nevertheless, the Zero was responsible for destroying at least 1,550 American aircraft between 1941 and 1945. Never substantially updated or replaced, the Zero remained the IJN's primary fighter throughout the war. With the arrival of new Allied fighters, such as theF6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair, the Zero was quickly eclipsed. Faced with superior opposition and a dwindling supply of trained pilots, the Zero saw its kill ratio drop from 1:1 to over 1:10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

They may have been shot down with minimal damage, but they dished out plenty before succumbing. Their maneuverability made them difficult to hit, while simultaneously getting in behind their targets to shred whatever they could. Here are a few excerpts from [http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/a6mzero.htm]

 

A6M Zero - Operational History:

Entering service in 1940, the A6M became known as the Zero based on its official designation of Type 0 Carrier Fighter. In early 1940, the first A6M2, Model 11 Zeros arrived in China and quickly proved themselves as the best fighter in the conflict. Fitted with a 950 hp Nakajima Sakae 12 engine, the Zero swept Chinese opposition from the skies. With the new engine, the aircraft exceeded its design specifications and a new version with folding wingtips, the A6M2, Model 21, was pushed into production for carrier use.

For much of World War II, the Model 21 was the version of the Zero that was encountered by Allied aviators. A superior dogfighter than the early Allied fighters, the Zero was able to out-maneuver its opposition. 

...the Allies benefited from the Zero's complete lack of protection as a single burst of fire was generally enough to down the aircraft.

This contrasted with Allied fighters, such as the P-40 Warhawk and F4F Wildcat, which though less maneuverable, were extremely rugged and difficult to bring down. Nevertheless, the Zero was responsible for destroying at least 1,550 American aircraft between 1941 and 1945. Never substantially updated or replaced, the Zero remained the IJN's primary fighter throughout the war. With the arrival of new Allied fighters, such as theF6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair, the Zero was quickly eclipsed. Faced with superior opposition and a dwindling supply of trained pilots, the Zero saw its kill ratio drop from 1:1 to over 1:10.

 

The only reasons the Zero has a reputation as being good is because the early war American aircraft it faced were equally terribad and flown by green pilots.

American aircraft went too far in the other direction.

American P-40 and F4F were both heavy, sluggish, and slow, thanks largely to their hilariously overbuilt airframes with inadequate engines.

 

If the A6M had faced early-mid war Commonwealth, German, or Soviet fighters, it would have been obliterated. They were just that much better. The A6M has comparable maneuverability to a Spitfire, Bf-109, or a Yak-1, but all of those aircraft are not only significantly faster, they have features the A6M had to omit to achieve it's range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323
[KOOKS]
Alpha Tester
2,869 posts
4,864 battles

Did you order them to attack?

 

Ordering your fighters to attack the attacking fighter and not makes a big difference - it's not automatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
119 posts
1,632 battles

 

The latter was pretty much my point. It took a fair amount of time for the Allied pilots to adapt and become competent against the Zero.

 

It took maybe a year, it didn't take long for the American Navy Airforce to realize not to turn fight with them. They had pretty bad engines and were made of wood for the most part, allowing even a Wildcat to simply Boom and Zoom them to death if it was above them. This plus incendiary rounds allowed the USN to wipe the floor with Zeroes. As for the J2Ms and Ki-61s... but those were built in pretty small numbers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
202 posts
633 battles

 

The only reasons the Zero has a reputation as being good is because the early war American aircraft it faced were equally terribad and flown by green pilots.

American aircraft went too far in the other direction.

American P-40 and F4F were both heavy, sluggish, and slow, thanks largely to their hilariously overbuilt airframes with inadequate engines.

 

If the A6M had faced early-mid war Commonwealth, German, or Soviet fighters, it would have been obliterated. They were just that much better. The A6M has comparable maneuverability to a Spitfire, Bf-109, or a Yak-1, but all of those aircraft are not only significantly faster, they have features the A6M had to omit to achieve it's range.

 

 

The F4F actually held it's own against the Zero and it's unfair to insult early war USN pilots considering they numbered people like Flatley, Thach, O'Hare, and Best in their ranks.  

 

Also, the 109 would be horrible as a carrier-based aircraft, as was the Seafire IRL, and range wouldn't be the only reason.  

Edited by boxtosser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
153 posts
15,753 battles

The A6M Zero lost its maneuverability at higher speed (around 200-250 knots). US pilots learned to keep zeros at high speed. Zeros were also unarmored. .50 cal incendiary bullets would ignite the Zeros' fuel tanks. Most of Japan's aircraft were unarmored which is why many Allied pilots made ace on on mission, you didn't need to use a lot of ammo to kill a Japanese Aircraft.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
Alpha Tester
4,156 posts
8,061 battles

In this thread we compare carrier-based fighters to land-based fighters as proof of carrier-based fighter inferiority.

 

All my wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
32 posts
2,346 battles

 

The only reasons the Zero has a reputation as being good is because the early war American aircraft it faced were equally terribad and flown by green pilots.

American aircraft went too far in the other direction.

American P-40 and F4F were both heavy, sluggish, and slow, thanks largely to their hilariously overbuilt airframes with inadequate engines.

 

If the A6M had faced early-mid war Commonwealth, German, or Soviet fighters, it would have been obliterated. They were just that much better. The A6M has comparable maneuverability to a Spitfire, Bf-109, or a Yak-1, but all of those aircraft are not only significantly faster, they have features the A6M had to omit to achieve it's range.

 

 

 

Spitfire mk.Vs did fight the Zero over Darwin, and they didn't do as great as you seem to think they would.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

 

 

The F4F actually held it's own against the Zero and it's unfair to insult early war USN pilots considering they numbered people like Flatley, Thach, O'Hare, and Best in their ranks.  

 

Also, the 109 would be horrible as a carrier-based aircraft, as was the Seafire IRL, and range wouldn't be the only reason.  

 

By the time Japan declared war on the USA, the Japanese military, including their air and naval air arm, had over 10 years of combat experience.

The USA didn't.

 

The F4F held it's own against the A6M because both were equally terrible for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

 

 

 

Spitfire mk.Vs did fight the Zero over Darwin, and they didn't do as great as you seem to think they would.

 

See, apparently an early 1:1 K/D ratio is enough to cement the A6M as some sort of wonder aircraft.

 

I'm willing to bet the Spitfire mk V had a better than 1:1 K/D ratio against A6M's

 

The Bf-109 had a 21:1 K/D ratio early in the war. Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
202 posts
633 battles

 

 

 

Spitfire mk.Vs did fight the Zero over Darwin, and they didn't do as great as you seem to think they would.

 

 

And the F4F saw service in the ETO with the British as the Martlet and performed very well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
982 posts
366 battles

In this thread we compare carrier-based fighters to land-based fighters as proof of carrier-based fighter inferiority.

 

All my wat

 

The problem is that in order to achieve the range requirement for carrier operation, the A6M sacrificed almost everything required to remain combat effective.

 

And that's my point: It has fantastic range, but falls hilariously flat as a combat aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
202 posts
633 battles

 

By the time Japan declared war on the USA, the Japanese military, including their air and naval air arm, had over 10 years of combat experience.

The USA didn't.

 

 

 

 

10 years of experience of mainly the Army (as opposed to the navy) fighting against a third-rate military with a lackluster air force.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×