Mitsubishi A6M2 versus Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat

The finest Jap against the finest US fighter in 1940. They both had their strenghts and vices, and were based on completely different philosophies. Which one would you choose, fighter against fighter?

 

The Zero obviously. If the Wildcat was even a close equal, the USN would have kept them.

 

I'd prefer the Wildcat... Although the Zeke is more agile and graceful, the wildcat was very heavily armed with 6 cannons, and could take alot of punishment... That probably made it very forgiving to new pilots

 

I must say till the first half of 1942 the zero ruled supreme (altough i like the stubby F4-F3 more)...
so my choice: A6M2

F4-F3 had only 4 Machine guns (never had 6 cannons)
F4-F4 got in service 1942 (wich had 6x 50. calibur machineguns....), finaly gotten it's folding wings and was even slower....

 

People always focus too much on equipment. I would prefer to be the better trained and more experienced pilot who knew how to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of both planes.
I would then win in either plane.

 

Zero definitly.He was supreme plane in that time,and first carrier based plane who was worthy oponent to landa based planes.

 

Personally, the issue of self-sealing fuel tanks and a slab of armor-plate behind my back tips the scales.
I'll take the Grumman Wildcat.
While I hate the idea of cranking-up the landing-gear by hand, the Wildcat was still an effective weapon in skilled hands. Once Allied pilots learned not to dogfight the Zero, the ruggedness of the Wildcat allowed "Chenault-type" tactics which were very successfully employed.
In most cases, the skill of the individual pilots will be the deciding factor.

Also keep in mind the Martlet--British Wildcat--was in FAA service long after the USN transitioned to F6F Hellcats.

Tim

 

"If there's one Wildcat versus one Zero, the Wildcat is outnumbered".

The Zero's dominance against Wildcats was contributed by the fact, that US pilots were poorly trained and flew with flawed tactics against Zeros. A zero will become increasingly stiff to handle when it gains speed, so you would prefer to fight against a Zero with a 200KTs+ regime applying Z&B tactics. Instead the US pilots used the old Burn and Turn tactics against Zeros, which was deadly to the Wildcat pilots. The US pilots learned how to deal against Zeros but they already had started the transition to Hellcats, but I have no doubt Zeros would be have had their hands full if the Wildcat pilots would have fought their fights instead of Zero's fight when they were fighting each other.

Interestingly, the numbers of downed planes Wildcat VS Zero is roughly even.

 

The reason why zero raigned supreme(till 1942) was that the allies didn't realise it's weaknesses and couldn't exploit those until after june 1942 when the finaly captured a reasonble intact A6m2
(pilot killed in emergency landing in some grassy field....everyone can find the details about it on the net and books)

 

I think it was somewhere in the Aleutians... Much like RAF dealing with FW-190s--except that the German pilot landed thinking he was in France...

 

Ok here it is (i just googled a bit):

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avzero.html#m4

 

The Wildcat was used throughout the war, the FM-2 version.

 

Wild cat.

 

.


Wildcat ,
the zero was underpowered and not strong enought to take a steep
dive or climb ,
the wildcat could break contact at will , a big plus
I believe than the superiority of the zero in 41 was due to the superiority
of their pilots




.

 

The only thing the Wildcat could do better is outdive and recieve a hell of a punishment compared to the mitsubishi...on all other aspects the Zero was simple better, had nothing to do with the pilots but to the lightness of the aircraft...that is one of the reasons the zero wasn't underpowered!
A Zero was fully loaded lighter than a empty wildcat....
so if a 2410 Kg Zero with a 950Hp engine is underpowered what would a 3167Kg Wildcat with a 1200Hp engine be???

2410/950 --> 2.54 kg per Hp zero full
3167/1200 --> 2.64 Kg per Hp wildcat full

1680/950 --> 1.77 Kg/Hp Zero empty
2423/1200 --> 2,01 Kg/Hp Wildcat empty


Zero simple has a better power to weight ratio (altough fully loaded not much)!

 

There is no doubt that the Zero was more maneuverable however if one is using boom and zoom tactics then horizontal maneuverability doesn't come into play much. If you burn or explode if you take any hits as was common with the Zero then it doesn't matter much that your plane can outturn the other guys plane.

 

Ome:
If we follow your rationale, then the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat, weighing 9042lbs (empty weight) and 11,381 loaded should have fared no better against the Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 with it's 950hp Nakajima Sakae radial which weighed 3,704lbs (empty weight) and 5313lbs loaded.

We know that was NOT the case.

Tim

 

I didn't say you have to follow my rationale...but in this case wildcat vs Zero it did make sense (wildcat was outperformed by the zero and it's light structure gave the advantage here...)!
My logic btw had only to do with saying the a6m2 wasn't underpowered compared to the wildcat!

We know that was the case.

 

.
looked more closely at the stats
concede the point for the zero rate of climb , the wildcat had a problem there
however wildcats must have been able to dive like a stone !!

.

 

The Zero had a good power-to-weight ratio because it was very light. Contrary to the official Western view at the time, it was not made of bamboo & rice paper ( ), but it did lack a lot of safety features like armour and self-sealing fuel tanks.

The Zero was extremely manouverable, but only at lower speeds. In a high-speed dogfight, it could not compete.


Once these weaknesses were discovered, the Zero was no longer the all-conquering chammpion. If it was able to use its advantages, it remained competative (arguably) right up to the end of the war. If the US pilots denied it that option, it was a much less powerful opponant.