Thread 64130231

Would they have btfo the RAF?

Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire are less nimble than the Zero.

Also the Zero could fly a lot longer distances than any german figther.

>>64130231 (OP)
Yes

i don't know much about them, all i know is that zeroes and judys got rekt by hellcats and vanguards which were superior in every way. so no, maybe in early ww2, but not by 1943-44

>>64130231 (OP)
Wouldn't have mattered, according to the Russian made Warthunder, The Yak 3 was the greatest prop plane ever invented,

it can outclimb all the other WW2 planes, it can out turn all the WW2 planes and most importantly its magically faster then any other WW2 plane.

>>64130262
>takes a look at in-game Yak-3 stats
>takes a look at other late-war fighters in-game
Cool story, bro. A freakin 109G-2 outruns it, outclimbs it, turns barely slower and just completely BTFO's it at any altitude above 5000 meters because the Yak significantly loses performance at altitude. So unless the kraut palyer si dumb enough to take his energy fighter into a low-altitude turning dogfight, he's gonna be holding all the cards.

>>64130231 (OP)
the first thing the krauts would do with the zero is mount a bigger powerplant, rubberized fuel tanks and bullet protection around the cockpit, which wouldn't fly with the Zero's sleek, hand-crafted, ultra fine-tuned form, and they'd end up substantially reengineering the airframe, making it excessively heavy that it no longer has any of the strengths of the Zero (agility, range, climb and airspeed)

>>64130231 (OP)
The zero was so incredible they would have won the air battle yes

But the air battle only matters for the Air

>>64130231 (OP)
No, they couldn't have built enough of them, they didn't have enough pilots, and most of all they didn't have enough fuel. They were never going to win the war in Africa, and they should have gone to war with Russia first - not Poland and the rest of Europe.

>>64130231 (OP)
>Would they have btfo the RAF
They would have btfo the RAF if they instead of bombing london, concentrated on bombing/straffing/destroying all RAF airfields constantly.

>>64130518
And they're doing that except that for most airfields the range wasn't sufficient for escorted missions.

I'm always given mixed information on the zero. On the one hand I'm told that it was an extremely dominant fighter by the standards of the early war and widely feared, and that virtually nothing could win a dogfight against a zero, to the point that Allied pilots were told to simply run from it if they didn't start off with an energy advantage or the element of surprise. On the other hand I'm told that by the late war, it was wholly inferior to virtually any frontline fighter, and Japan had far more capable designs but didn't use them as widely due to material constraints. Which is true?

>>64130654
I'm not an expert but all opinions online seem to agree that this is true

>>64130654
I'll take the obvious bait.

1. The Zero was always underpowered, especially the original A6M1 (Zuisei engine), the normal Zero A6M2 was comparable to the F4F. The reason was the impossible original specification of a very long range (6-8 hours at economical cruise) and still agile fighter at least as fast as the fastest enemy fighters of late 1937, 1938. There's a lot of fudlore around the maneuverability of the Zero at higher speed but the thing that matters is 2.
2. It had advantage of range at the cost of things like dive speed (the F4F was one of the fastest diving planes of WWII, even in 1945). Even if the IJN wasn't dogfighting (the usual combat of the 1930s) any encounter that was turned into a dogfight would end in a tie or a Zero victory. Especially against the early fighters like the I-15 and I-16 that were problematic for the older types the IJA/IJN had in China. That means that as offensive fighter the Zero always had advantage, meanwhile as defensive it was hopeless. The IJA planes were far better for defense/interceptions at the cost of range.
3. After Pearl Harbor Japan lost the access to good gasoline without risk, that limited the growth potential for 2-3 years and questionable engineering decisions created a family of unreliable successors that only the IJA really adopted.
4. After 1942 the US began to field aircrafts with considerable more engine power (60% to 100% more) that was used to out range the Zero without fuel tanks. The main advantage was lost.

Another thing was the double edge of the range, Japan didn't have the naval support to recover any Zero lost due to damage or mechanical failure, that killed a lot of their best pilots.

>>64130262
be me
lowly Warthunder code monkey at Gaijin HQ
assigned to “prop balance team” (aka propaganda balance team)
lead dev barges into room one morning, eyes bloodshot from too much vodka
slams folder on desk: “Comrade… Yak-3 must be greatest propeller plane of all time.”
me: “But sir, historically it was just decent at low altitude dogfights–”
him: “Shut up. Stalin personally asked from the grave.”
entire team now forced to make Yak-3 outperform everything
coding nightmare begins
Spitfire Mk IX? Loses every turn fight.
P-51 Mustang? Engine overheats after 12 seconds of WEP.
Fw 190 Dora? Spontaneous wing failure when Yak is within 2km.
historical documents keep “appearing” from mysterious Russian archive
all say “Yak-3 superior in every metric, signed Lavochkin, Tupolev, and God”
balance team just nods while crying
implemented Yak-3 special ability: bullets curve in air like Wanted (2008)
enemy pilot gets pilot sniped at random, kill feed just says “Yak-3 supremacy”
patch notes: “minor adjustments to flight model”
playerbase riots, forums on fire, NATO mains seething
Russian mains: “Works exactly as intended, Yak-3 best plane, very historical, cyka.”
stats show Yak-3 winrate 96% in all modes
CEO says “not good enough”
new directive: make Yak immune to flak, AAA, and bad vibes
coded Yak 3 so robust that it survives direct hit from nuke test at Bikini Atoll
current patch name internally: Project Comrade Pigeon
sometimes sneak in bug report like “Yak should maybe not outrun jet aircraft”
gets closed immediately with reply “historical documents prove otherwise”
team morale = 0, vodka consumption = 100%
tfw my entire job is making a flying lawnmower into the second coming of the F-22

>>64130654

Both. The zero had great performance but at the cost of being a flimsy rice cooker whose avionics made the F4F look like an F-111 Aardvark. Then in the mid (by burger time scaling) war the USN improved BFM training to play to their strengths against it.

Late War allied fighters were so mechanically, operationally and etherically better than their 1940/41 counterparts in every way they are different animals all together: armament, airframe, reliability/survivability, gunsights, compressibility to say nothing about 2000 HP monster engines with enough torque to twist the nipples of god himself. The Zero did not have such a glow up.

Curiously, in the skies over Darwin, the Japanese maintained a strong advantage despite being intercepted by Spit Vc.
In particular, 14 Spits were lost in the battle on May 2, 1943.

>>64130742
What about the later versions of the zero?

>>64130726
i've been playing against yak3 fucks all week and let me tell you, you are spot on man. My J2M2 has no chance yet i eat everyone else

Not 100% on topic but where is the tabletop gaming anons lately, I loved the bomber and other game threads. It's on-topic crossover for the board.
>>64130791
I've been creative writing a bit. The AA russian commanders posts and such. But yes I try to be accurate and fuck them fuckin fucks.

>>64130231 (OP)
Too slow at altitude
Too slow in level flight
Critical dive too low
>>64130726
Il2 sturmovik all over again
>>64130742
F6F handily pp slaps it even as a heavy naval fighter in most aspects other than sustained turn and range

Zero gets so much glazing for a plane that never dominated a battle let alone an entire theater.

>>64130858
It's because it's mechanical wonder from a country that was really poor and punched much above their weight thanks to engineering genius

>>64130231 (OP)
Spitfire had a higher ceiling and better climb rate after a couple of years, they would have attacked the zero from above.

>>64130761
Lost some maneuverability to give it survivability, net result is a wash and late war pilots were awful compared to the ultra trained pre-war pilots.

>>64130654
>by the late war, it was wholly inferior to virtually any frontline fighter
Name me a fighter from 1940 that wasn't by mid-late 1944.

>>64130858
>a plane that never dominated a battle
It dominated the whole Pacific theatre for over a year.

>>64131141
Bf 109

>>64131273
that's how much my bf weighs too

>>64131273
>Max speed: 650 to +700 km/h at high altitude
>Engine power: 2000 HP(m)
>Armament: 20/30mm, 2 13mm
>Weight: 3.2 tons

>Max speed: 550-570 km/h at medium altitude
>Engine power: 1100 HP
>Armament: 1 20mm, 2 0.30
>Weight: 2.5 tons
Totally the same dumbfuck

Op is clearly a dumb nigger obsessing over Japan and their trash. Op's dad could possibly be the reason for the constant crayon eating grade "dont rape woman" training sessions in okinawa.

>>64130858
>never dominated a battle let alone an entire theater
Maybe if you live in an alternative timeline. every single primary account from the allied side of the fence in WW2 glazes the Zero. I was reading Kenney's memoirs recently and he had to put in substantial effort to break the fear of the Zero from his pilots at the 5th airforce and other units at SWPA, and that was by convincing them that the Japanese aviator training was going bad. Same was happening across Pacific and the SEA theater as a whole; everyone feared the Zero.

> Technical Comparison (mid-1940 variants)
>Feature | Bf 109E-3/E-4 ("Emil") --- A6M2 Model 11/21 ("Zero")
>Engine Daimler-Benz DB 601A, ~1,100 hp --- Nakajima Sakae 12, ~940 hp
>Max speed ~570 km/h (355 mph) at 12,000 ft --- ~540 km/h (336 mph) at 16,000 ft
>Range ~660 km (410 mi) in combat, ~1,100 km w/ drop tank --- ~1,870 km (1,160 mi) – exceptionally long
>Armament 2× 7.92mm MG 17 + 2× 20mm MG FF cannon --- 2× 7.7mm MG + 2× 20mm Type 99 cannon
>Armor / Protection Some cockpit armor + self-sealing tanks (limited but present) --- No armor, no self-sealing tanks
>Weight ~2,600 kg loaded --- ~2,400 kg loaded

> Bf 109E (1940):
> Strengths: Faster, climbs better at medium altitudes, robust dive performance, more survivable (armor + self-sealing tanks), heavier nose-mounted armament.
> Weaknesses: Short range, less agile at low speed, smaller operational endurance.

> A6M Zero (1940):
> Strengths: Extreme range (nearly triple the 109’s), astonishing low-speed agility, tight turning radius, good climb at low speeds.
> Weaknesses: Fragile (no armor or fuel protection), poor high-speed handling, compressibility in dives, easily out-rolled at higher speeds.

>>64133329
Now compare the Bf-109 operating at the conditions of the Pacific...
The Spirfire, similar to the E3/4 was worse than the Zero in the Pacific after the adaptations to make it operable there (Trop and engine derating)

>>64133364
> Now compare the Bf-109 operating at the conditions of the Pacific...
why would I?

OPs question was:
> Would they have btfo the RAF?
not
> could the Japs have used the Bf 109 instead of the Zero


Zero was a good carrier fighter in 1941 / 42 but a mediocre to poor normal fighter

>>64130726
I once dumped my whole ammo into one and it survived without problems

>>64133408
>why
Because operating conditions matter. A Zero can operate at higher boost without cooling or knocking problems under the same conditions than the Bf 109. All airplanes in the Pacific were under derated conditions or more unreliable than normal. In North Africa the Trop variants were awfully unreliable and considerably derated.

>>64133435
so the point you are trying to make that the Zero in europe would have been faster than 540 km/h because it's speed is skewed due to "pacific climate"

amazing. I assume you got a source for that?

>>64131291
Bf 109 could be upgraded meanwhile Zero received little to no changes

>>64130231 (OP)
>Would they have btfo the RAF?
no
>Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire are less nimble
just zoom and boom
or even just attack the Zero head-on, like the Hurricanes did in Burma

>>64130353
/thread

>>64130743
easy answer: RAAF pilots were nooblets
look up how many of those Spitfires were lost to simply running out of fuel

>>64130858
Americans had to find some explanation for getting their asses kicked other than
>our early war pilots were outskilled

>>64133457
Around minute 35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enff_CVSoC0
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/tropical-performance-of-hurricane-and-spitfire.63348/
Engines like the Merlin or DB601 were optimized for the European theater, as soon as England operated them at higher temperature the performance would be 20-40% worse (less air density, less cooling available/more drag for cooling, less boost pressure below critical altitude).

In the Pacific the Spitfire had less engine power than a Zero below 4 km because those 2 planes were optimized for different operating conditions, so comparing a Pacific Zero with an European Bf109 is beyond retarded.

>>64133474
The Zero was upgraded with Kinsei (+1500HP) but the Navy didn't approve it. The Kinsei is similar in size to the Homare of 2000HP.
Meanwhile the IJA had an equivalent to the Zero with a engine as powerful as the Fw 190. The IJN was far more strict in their requirement than the Luftwaffe.

>>64133508
> Engines like the Merlin or DB601 were optimized for the European theater
Ki-61 using a license built DB601 was pulling 580 km/h at 3,470 kg

also the pic you linked does not prove that the A6M would have been faster than 540 km/h in Europe
for all we know the 540 could be "optimal" number without any tropical overheating

>>64133581
The Ki-61 was a considerable different design.

>also the pic you linked does not prove that the A6M would have been faster than 540 km/h in Europe
If you wanna see a engine like the Sakae working with less restrictions of fuel and temperature see the R1830. If you still insist to see a direct example of a Japanese engine running at higher power after removing the operational restrictions (but without altering the engine) check the US TAIC reports, including the J2M running at 50% extra engine power (+2100HP vs 1450HP). The J2M in particular had forced cooling so the higher boost was less problematic.
Most of the time Japan tested their aircraft with derated engines compared to the design specification, they could boost some engines up to 1.7ATA vs 1.2-1.4 that was normal in the pacific (according to TAIC report on engines). The idea of the Homare was to remove the fuel restriction by using continuous ADI because their designs weren't restricted by the mechanical side but due to operational restrictions. And unlike the problematic DB601Aa licensed, the Homare was comparatively less problematic even if the concept was kinda retarded, they had far better engines.

>>64133581
The Ki-61 was a considerably different design. It would be like comparing a Hurricane with the Spitfire just because they shared the same engine (including version).

>also the pic you linked does not prove that the A6M would have been faster than 540 km/h in Europe
If you wanna see a engine like the Sakae working with less restrictions of fuel and temperature see the R1830. If you still insist to see a direct example of a Japanese engine running at higher power after removing the operational restrictions (but without altering the engine) check the US TAIC reports, including the J2M running at 50% extra engine power (+2100HP vs 1450HP). The J2M in particular had forced cooling so the higher boost was less problematic.
Most of the time Japan tested their aircraft with derated engines compared to the design specification, they could boost some engines up to 1.7ATA vs 1.2-1.4 that was normal in the pacific (according to TAIC report on engines). The idea of the Homare was to remove the fuel restriction by using continuous ADI because their designs weren't restricted by the mechanical side but due to operational restrictions. And unlike the problematic DB601Aa licensed, the Homare was comparatively less problematic even if the concept was kinda retarded, they had far better engines.

>>64133622
that's a whole lot of assumptions upon assumptions
that - even if true - still don't prove that the A6M Zero could have pulled more than 540 km/h

>>64133626
>>64133508
>>64133457
> V max. 335 mph
> flight tests done at California
> not reduced to standard conditions

>>64133680
>that - even if true - still don't prove that the A6M Zero could have pulled more than 540 km/h
If gave specific reference because you're a retard.
Do you want to see how derated were Japanese engines?
>U.S. Technical Air Intelligence Command (TAIC) tested two captured J2Ms using 92 octane fuel plus methanol and calculated maximum speeds using measurements. The J2M2 ("Jack 11") achieved a speed of 407 mph (655 km/h) at 17,400 ft (5,300 m), and the J2M3 ("Jack 21") achieved a speed of 417 mph (671 km/h) at 16,600 ft (5,100 m).
For an aircraft with a max speed of 600 km/h.
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf
The TAIC didn't test max speed for the Zero, just performance estimations.

>>64133693
>not TAS
Useless, to give an example the F6F could land at IAS = 0 mph

>>64133508
> > comparing a Pacific Zero with an European Bf109 is beyond retarded

> "could Germans have won WW2 if they had zero"?
> DO NOT compare the Zero to German fighters doughbit
so pointless thread then?

>>64133720
>retard don't understand that at minimum you need to compare 2 planes under the same operational conditions
It must be hard to be retarded.

>>64133694
If I gave you a specific reference it's because*

>>64130297
>he looks at the stats on paper that are "totally real & legit bro" and not just frontend lie compared to the backend game code
Poor naive (You). Maybe look at the devs shenanigans in past with blatant slavshit & chink bias which often wasn't up in your face on paper

>>64133694
> The TAIC didn't test max speed for the Zero, just performance estimations.
I mean fair enough (it says "preliminary figures" too after all)
but I still think it's not justified to assume that the Zero was faster just because another Plane was faster too

like some Fw-190s had emergency boost that made them go +30 km/ h faster than their normal speed but that doesn't automatically mean that the Bf 109 E was faster than it's stated speed

>>64130509
>and they should have gone to war with Russia first - not Poland and the rest of Europe.
pray tell how are they going to go to war with the soviets without invading poland first? there was a precisely 0% chance the poles would ever let them go through even to fight their enemy on the other side

>>64130518
Anything north of London was out of range for german escort fighters

>>64133768
One issue German pilots had that if they had to parachute then they were out of the war. If an RAF pilot parachuted then they were up again as soon as they were healthy.
I think during the Battle of Britain the RAF was recieving more aircraft than pilots.

>>64133746
The only thing restricting the speed and climbing rate of the Zero was the engine power, and Japanese engines were limited in boost due to fuel and ambient conditions, once they added ADI to reduce the knocking problem the usual boost was increased by ~20% for the same engines. Germans didn't have those problems (except for the thermal load of the exhaust valves after 1943), their engines were running at considerably higher boost and specific power than Japanese airplanes. All the improvements of the Merlin and DB601/5 were related to fuel and small modifications to reinforce them to maintain mechanical integrity.

>>64130262
The dive speed on it is trash

>>64133680
Sakai claims the A6M2 can hit 555 when overboosted

>>64130231 (OP)
>Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire are less nimble than the Zero.
So were the F4 and F6s, and once tactics improved, they BTFO-ed the Zeros

>>64133750
Massive bombing campaign, of course.

Hype up the red menace, keep relations with Western Europe in place to allow logistical access to needed resources, massive air dominance campaign. Destroy Moscow. If the reds start a land invasion, their neighbors will become more accommodating to German reinforcements.

>>64131144
Mixed results in carrier battles. Managed to do well against USAAF aircraft and had mixed results against the Wildcat.

>>64134827
>Mixed results in carrier battles
lol
lmao
the Zero absolutely dunked on the Wildcat. Jimmy Thach himself, who cooked the beam tactic, said so.
Any instances where Wildcats survived battles with Zeros were in his words outliers.