🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
@OdeeOz
Жыл бұрын
This being only my 2nd video to view. I can see well, how you have 30k subscribers. 👍👍 10⭐
@saralee9091
Жыл бұрын
my father was a corsair pilot. he would say 'never get in a dogfight with a zero. make one pass and keep going'
@lonzo61
Жыл бұрын
They called it Boom and Zoom.
@williammitchell4417
Жыл бұрын
That was Chenault's tactic. Pappy loved to fly the Corsair.
@Dave5843-d9m
18 күн бұрын
British naval test pilot Eric Brown instinctively showed how to put the long nose Corsair onto a carrier landing. He flew a long curved approach so the flight deck remained in view until the last moment. USN had refused the aircraft because its long nose negatively affected deck landing.
@williamashbless7904
Жыл бұрын
The Zero is beautiful and a testament to form and function. The Wildcat was utilitarian and overbuilt . If I wanted to be an Ace, I would want the Zero. If I wanted to survive the war, I’d take the Wildcat. Dogfighting is all about understanding your strengths and weaknesses and fighting within those parameters.
@greggs1067
Жыл бұрын
A Flight Journal magazine article mentioned that the folding wings on Grumman planes gave them a 5/2 superiority in numbers over the Japanese. They could stage flights with twice as many planes on the deck with engines on for a mission. I’ll take the numerical superiority (and a Hellcat if I can cheat).
@carlflaherty2215
Жыл бұрын
That's the thing. If a pilot survives, he will get better. This was the true deciding factor. The Japanese lost too many good fliers and were unsuccessful in training up replacement pilots.
@thevortex6754
Жыл бұрын
I agree, but for me, I’d choose the Wildcat because as someone else already said as well as you, the folding wings gave the Wildcat numerical superiority, and it was rugged enough to survive multiple hits from 20mm cannons. The longer you fly your plane, the better you are, and if I can take a few hits and make it back to the carrier, that means the ruggedness of the F4F gave me another chance to shoot down more enemies. I guess this comes from my way of life, I’m out in the country so I prefer rugged equipment over fancy cars. But the choice is entirely your own, this is just my preference
@ph2738
Жыл бұрын
All I want is a Ki-84. We are lucky Imperial Japan couldn’t produce more of them.
@carlflaherty2215
Жыл бұрын
@@ph2738 How does the Ki-84 stack up to the P51-Mustang? Wouldn't that be the correct comparison?
@lyntwo
Жыл бұрын
My mother's sister's husband, my uncle, was a naval fighter pilot in the Pacific. He said they the pilots were told, "We can get more planes but pilots are hard to come by." They were taught to use the strengths of the planes they flew, better pilot armor, stronger construction, self sealing fuel tanks. God, how little did we appreciate him and them. How ordinary it all seemed, the Zero throttle stick, the photos, the stories. A controlled crash landing on a flat ship in the middle of the world's largest ocean at night....
@captbart3185
Жыл бұрын
There were three Allied fighters that started behind but fought the entire war with success. The F4F, the P-40, and the Hurricane. Each of them was outclassed by their opposition throughout the war but when flown by pilots who knew their aircraft and flew them to their strengths they more than held their own. When not flown to their strengths their pilots died. None of them could turn with the A6M or the bF109 but when flown as "zoom and boom" diving attacks they performed exceptionally well. The British pilots who were ordered to dog fight the Zeros in their P-40s died. Those who followed the Flying Tigers model of climbing to altitude and diving thru the Japanese formations had quite a bit of success. These planes fought in all theaters for the duration of the war. They were never the best but they were the best available at the time. The Hurricane turned back the Luftwaffe during the blitz (there simply were not enough Spits to turn the tide), the P-40s helped save China and provided air cover for the African invasion, and the Wildcats turned the tide at Midway and helped save the fleet at the Battle of Samar while the P-40 helped hold Australia. To my mind, the Zero's short comings negated its advantages when faced with pilots who were not new to combat.
@captbart3185
Жыл бұрын
I didn’t answer the question. The F4F is my choice. Any pilot can be surprised, even by some dumb but very lucky rookie, the protection provided the pilot and essential hardware of the F4F allowed many pilots in battle damaged planes to either get home or survive the crash long enough to be rescued. I’ll take the F4F to fight another day.
@bkjeong4302
Жыл бұрын
The Zero was overspecialized as a turnfighter, but the Bf109 was actually a boom-and-zoom fighter that sacrificed agility for speed.
@captbart3185
Жыл бұрын
@@bkjeong4302 You are correct about the A6M. It was designed based on the dog fights of WW1 and over China. Probably the best "knife fighter" of WW2 and no critique of the design for that purpose. Once the US figured that out, guys like Chennault and Thatch, the A6M lost its edge and then its like of armor doomed its pilots. The Japanese mistake was to not recognize the change in air warfare in time to make a difference. The Zero was possibly the best dog fighter ever created but it was the ultimate of its type. Like the Bf109, the 1930's design was best in class but the class changed circa 1940 and it couldn't keep up.
@bkjeong4302
Жыл бұрын
@@captbart3185 I was talking more about the Bf109, which was NOT designed based on the same obsolete air combat principles as the Zero despite being a contemporary. The Bf109 was not a “knife fighter” in the way a Zero is (in fact the Bf 109’s famous opponent the Spitfire was more of a Zero-like “knife fighter” than the Bf109 was). The Bf 109’s actual problems have more to do with difficulties with landings, being an aircraft with a steep learning curve, and limited range.
@cykeok3525
Жыл бұрын
Aside from "zoom and boom" firing passes, didn't they also use team-based tactics involving multiple friendly and opposing aircraft that allowed them to work around the poor turn rate and lower power-to-weight of their aircraft? The Thach Weave is the most popular example of such a maneuver, but not the only one.
@edwardpate6128
Жыл бұрын
Both the F4F and the P-40 seem to never get the credit they deserve for the great work they did in the first half of the war.
@Idahoguy10157
Жыл бұрын
They never get enough credit.
@matthewbratton3825
Жыл бұрын
They both fought the good fight in the dark days of early World War Two and throughout the Pacific Theater. With tactics using their strengths and experienced pilots could turn the tables on the enemy.
@stylinstu
Жыл бұрын
I think the Hawker Hurricane is in the same company as the f4f and p40
@Idahoguy10157
Жыл бұрын
@@stylinstu … all three aircraft were in service from the beginning of conflict till the end. They were underdogs punching above their weight class
@matthewbratton3825
Жыл бұрын
@@stylinstu The Hurricane was the workhorse of the RAF while the Spitfire was the thoroughbred.
@barryervin8536
Жыл бұрын
Great video. Another point to remember is that not every Japanese fighter plane was a Zero. Probably half of the planes identified in wartime reports as Zeros were actually the very similar looking Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar) army fighter. Of course, if they were operating from a carrier they were Zeros.
@Nghilifa
Жыл бұрын
True. Same thing with the German Tiger tank. American tank units only encountered it no more than 5 or 6 times in western europe before Germany surrendered. Anything that resembled it, was called a Tiger, even though they were probably Panzer 3 & 4s with lengthened cannon and side "skirts", and sometimes Panzer 5s.
@michaeltelson9798
Жыл бұрын
Ever since I was a preteen, the F4F Wildcat was a favorite. Later at work a coworker who knew my interest in scale modeling and history of the subject asked me to find information on his relative. This relative was John Lucius Smith the commander of VMF 223 in the Cactus Air Force. Smith was overshadowed by his charismatic subordinate, Marion Carl even though Smith had the higher tally of victories and is considered an architect of the tactics used against the Japanese. Both Smith and Carl were honored with the Navy Cross and Medal of Honor alongside Joe Foss. Scale model companies still confused the markings, as Smith usually flew number “2” and Carl his “lucky 13”. Both are attributed to Carl by these companies.
@johnmoldoch-vj2jk
Жыл бұрын
I thought it was "Marion Carol" not Carl.
@michaeltelson9798
Жыл бұрын
@Delwood Barnaby He had he’s d something but didn’t know how to look for more information. I found what I could and gave him one of the references
@fpftraining
Жыл бұрын
The Wildcat and a well-trained wingman for me. Captain Foss had some thoughts on the topic: “We have a saying up at Guadalcanal, if you’re alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell because you’re outnumbered.” “When you find yourself all alone out there, head for home. (…) Look, when I was all alone, I scooted for home. I’m still around. The guys who fought themselves are dead”. Cpt. Joseph Foss, USMC, in speach to the RAAF 1st wing pilots, Sydney, December 1942.
@williampaz2092
Жыл бұрын
I would always pick the F4F Wildcat instead of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Armor plate, self sealing fuel tanks; a radio that works. Neither the A6M Zero or the Nakajima Ki 43 Hayabusa fighter could take any punishment from fifty caliber machine gun bullets, while the Wildcat was designed to absorb punishment and keep flying.
@enscroggs
Жыл бұрын
55:47 On the matter of training. Training is vital, but even the best-trained pilot still needs to acquire experience to be truly effective in air combat. This is where the heavily protected Wildcat and later Allied combat aircraft with similar levels of protection built into their designs became decisive. Whereas a rookie American pilot flying a Wildcat had at least long odds of surviving a losing confrontation with a Zero pilot, a rookie Zero pilot had virtually no chance at all of surviving a losing encounter with a Wildcat. The Wildcat pilot had a slim but nevertheless appreciable chance of making it back to his carrier where his mistakes could be analyzed and lessons taken that could make him a much more formidable opponent in future missions. Even if the American pilot had to bail out or ditch there remained a slim yet nevertheless real possibility of his survival, which increased considerably as the war progressed as the Allies developed ever-improving means of search and rescue. In contrast, the IJN hardly ever recovered a lost pilot. The USN probably captured more downed Japanese pilots than the IJN ever recovered. There's a story attributed to an AA gunner aboard the Yamato who survived that ship's destruction on 7 April 1945. During the height of the battle, a damaged American warplane ditched within sight of the Japanese gunner. At least one flyer got out and was floating nearby in his tiny one-man raft. The gunner thought, well, he's doomed. But barely a minute later an American flying boat landed and rescued the downed airman, all within easy range of the Yamato's 25mm guns. The gunner was dumbfounded by this display of reckless courage and devotion on the part of the flying boat's crew because he knew his own navy would never take such a risk for one man.
@johnmoldoch-vj2jk
Жыл бұрын
The U.S. spent a lot of money to train their pilots, they wanted to give them as good of a chance as possible to make it back to friendly territory.
@steveschainost7590
Жыл бұрын
As I understand it, when a US pilot proved his skill at surviving combat and by shooting down a number of enemy planes, he was rotated home to train new pilots. Teaching them the skills he had learned the hard way. On the other hand, the Japanese (and Germans) flew combat until either: the day they died, they could not fly anymore due to injuries or, the end of the war.
@johnmoldoch-vj2jk
Жыл бұрын
@@steveschainost7590 very much so. Hence the heavy armor and self sealing fuel tanks.
@JayBurkett
Жыл бұрын
Great analysis! One point that most people miss is that during the Guadalcanal campaign the Zero needed an external tank to get to the Henderson and back. That external tank could not be jettisoned! This limited the maneuverability of the Zero to a certain degree. It helped even the odds between the Wildcat. Keep up the good work!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Jay!
@MrLolx2u
Жыл бұрын
The Zero's pilots actually used the guns more and it's a damn good aid. With dogfights going on that quickly, the Japanese pilots knew that their cannons can be pretty lacklusture in some fights thus to ensure that every shot hits, they'll do what most tank crews do by "ranging" their targets. The more experienced pilot would just flip the switch and pick the MG, fire it upon a target plane and if it connects for more than 1sec, flip the "killswitch" and unleash the cannons on the target to guarantee a sure-kill. That helps them save cannon ammo instead of lobbing cannon rounds into the unknown and wasting it. The US pilots opting to fire 2 less guns with switches, that I don't know but I do know that the US pilots DID try to not use the other 2 guns by asking their armament crew to not load the other 2 guns but instead lengthen the ammo belt for the other 4 MGs which left the 2 outer MGs inert. Speaking of tactics, one of the most famous move the Zero pilots pulled on F4F pilots was the "parallel climb" and it was also advocated by the legendary Saburo Sakai himself. What this does is that as the Zeros are lighter and all of them have a better climbing rate than the Wildcats, they can just climb like mad before it hits its low stall speed whereas the heavier F4F would stall quicker during a speedy climb. So Zero pilots would often zoom onto an F4F and instead of dogfighting it just tip the nose very steeply and starts climbing, baiting the F4F pilots to chase after it with a climb of it's own. As it gets higher and steeper, the heavier F4F would feel the gravitational pull sucking the power out of its engine and then just deadfalls once it stalls, giving the Japanese pilot a chance to just flip the Zero over, latch onto the now falling F4F and shoot it like it's a fish in a barrel. This tactic was used constantly from Coral Sea to Guadacanal and all the way to Midway till the more powerful F6F Hellcat came about where this tactic doesn't work on the Hellcats anymore.
@Ob1sdarkside
Жыл бұрын
If it was a looks based competition, the zero every time. Like another person said, in a one vs one, I'd take the zero, in large battle, the wildcat. I like the idea of possibly making it home after taking a few hits.
@Ob1sdarkside
Жыл бұрын
@Aqua Fyre Can't argue with that.
@charlesparr1611
Жыл бұрын
The zero is as beautiful as the wildcat is plug ugly. In fact, between the p-47, the various wildcats and hellcaats, and the unspeakably disgusting Corsair, America easily has the ugliest air assets of any ww2 power. Especially the Corsair.... My nose art on that bloody thing, if I were a pilot, would be Tromp l'oil of a o paper bag over it's face. I get that it became an effective fighter, though it killed a lot of it's own pilots because if it's terrible design flaws like ground looping at the drop of a hat, and having to land without being able to even see the bloody aircraft carrier in front of you, surely the largest blind spot at the worst time, the poor bastards saddled with it eventually figured it out. This seems to be characteristic of many American military assets in the early stages of the war: The torpedoes are likely the best example, but the US had so many vehicles and systems that were just straight up hot garbage. To say that superior training and therefore skill shown by the soldiers compensated is to ignore the casualties in those early corsairs, and the extra year or so of war in the pacific that can be shown to result from the near complete failure of US submarines to sink things early in the conflict: Imagine the progress of the war if all those ships with small dents in their hull where torpedoes bounced off without exploding had sunk. To be fair, the Mustang and the P38 are both beautiful aircraft, stunning in fact, and the p-40 and even the Airacobra are quite pretty. But the corsair.... the thing looks like the first carrier landing smashed the wings crooked and some drunk decided that since the crunching was symmetrical, who cares. It looked like it was propped up omn stilts while parked, the proportions were simply weird, not a trace of elegance can be ascribed to it, and supposedly it flew like a spherical cow with a bad hangover. It's two redeeming features were raw power, and (from the marine perspective) if you got them into the air and were stilll alive, then it was fantastic as a multi-role aircraft and excelled as air support toground operations. At least until you had to land. But every marine just considered that, at least for once they were getting something brand new.... Even if it was only because those pansies in the USAAF and the squids had both turned their noses up at it.
@markzimmerman7279
Жыл бұрын
@@charlesparr1611 the Brits had the ugliest aircraft and the Russians
@MajorBorris
Жыл бұрын
@@charlesparr1611 any pilot looking at a zero versus a Corsair has an easy choice. One can tell that there's easily a thousand more horsepower just by looking at the Corsair.
@charlesparr1611
Жыл бұрын
@@MajorBorris Sure, but the corsair remains an exceptionally ugly airplane, and the zero remains an exceptionally beautiful one. Would I take on a corsair in a zero? The only way that would happen is if I was a Japanese naval aviator and couldn't find a way to accidentally bail out over a nice tropical island where I could quietly wait out the war fishing and working on my tan. Being a zero in a fight with a corsair would be like watching a pit bull kill a kitten, the kitten is certainly the cutest, but....
@cyberfutur5000
Жыл бұрын
After all that information, I think I'd still choose the Sptifire^^ No seriously, I'm glad to not have to fly any of them (in anger), my grandfather flew a 109 in the med and tho he loved talking about flying those things, he didn't really like to talk about the combat part and I get why. I'm just utterly, utterly grateful to be born 45 years after the war and especially after the third reich... That said: This video was amazing! Thank you for making it and to answer your question properly, in combat, I'd rather be in the Grumman but if I could just own one of those and fly it around, definitely the zero, it's beautiful, maybe even more so than a spit or mustang. But when people shoot at me, yeah, give me the grumman. please!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching!
@johnfisher9692
Жыл бұрын
There is a fantastic book you should read called Duels in the Sky by Capt. Eric M Brown RN. He was a fighter and test pilot during WW2 and holds the record for the most different types of aircraft flown. He gives a wonderful breakdown of all the pros and cons of many warplanes and how they would stack up against each other. He stated if the Seafire had the range and deck landing ability of the Hellcat it would have ruled the seas. He ranked the Zero lower due to it very fragile construction and inability to withstand combat damage.
@cyberfutur5000
Жыл бұрын
@@johnfisher9692 thanks:) i heard of this guy, but didn’t know about his book. but indeed, that sounds like my kind of book
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
@@johnfisher9692 Thanks, I'll see if I can find a copy
@uncoolmartin460
Жыл бұрын
@@cyberfutur5000 You might enjoy "They gave me a Seafire" by Commander R M Crosley A Fleet Air Arm pilot, very interesting read if you haven't read it already.
@svgproductions72
Жыл бұрын
The F4F is probably my favorite warbird of all time, I’m a bit biased so you know my choice! I made a few videos about them myself, great work sir
@oldcremona
Жыл бұрын
Me too. The tubby little Wildcat is a fascinating airplane.
@TheThunderChilde
Жыл бұрын
Honestly I fell in love with the Wildcat at an airshow, the pilot was friendly and talkative to a wide-eyed kid. I was already a military hardware nut, but the trivia I learned that day I still recall, 32 cranks, up and down, left and right, its why you could tell a wildcat pilot at a distance, big arms.
@aussiefan354
Жыл бұрын
I would pick the Wildcat. It had armour and self sealing fuel tanks with the Zero having neither.
@stephenbesley3177
Жыл бұрын
Agreed, pilot protection and firepower. Survivability instills confidence in your pilots too, a very useful bonus
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935
Жыл бұрын
But not down on the deck without excess dive speed.
@Garhunt05
Жыл бұрын
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 f4f had no "never exceed" speed
@angelofwar_7711
Жыл бұрын
@@Garhunt05 All planes have never exceed speed during dive especially during ww2
@thevortex6754
Жыл бұрын
@@angelofwar_7711 that’s true, but even in the later years of the war, they just didn’t have the engines strong enough to push them that fast. Examples are the Brewster Buffalo, Grumman F4F Wildcat, and Republics P-47 Thunderbolt. They just didn’t have the power to get close to those numbers because of how strong their airframes are.
@kevinfrank5527
Жыл бұрын
Another aspect of pilot skill was the US policy of withdrawing veteran pilots from combat to train new pilots and squadrons. These new pilots had the benefit of learning the most successful combat tactics from the men who used (or even developed) them. The Japanese kept their veterans in the front line squadrons to provide on the job mentoring of new replacement pilots. As the war progressed and more of these veterans were lost, the basic combat savyness of new Japanese pilots was noticeably lower than that of a new squadrons of American pilots.
@jimleffler7976
10 ай бұрын
One thing overlooked in the Thach Weave discussion was he got Lt O Hare to help him , but Cdr Thach had modified his Wildcat's throttle by using wire to only allow it to go so far, Lt O Hare s Wildcat was full capacity throttle. It was done to mimic a Zero vs Wildcat performance parameter
@Ob1sdarkside
Жыл бұрын
Great video, covered everything. Tactics, armament, plane specs, training, really well researched, thanks!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@brucewelty7684
Жыл бұрын
EXCEPT! The answer to his own question!
@cdfe3388
Жыл бұрын
At low altitude, take a Zero. Higher up, F4F. They’re both excellent airplanes, and each have strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think either is superior to the other overall, but their different characteristics mean that the circumstances of the fight will determine which plane has the advantage.
@markr.1984
Жыл бұрын
High is where the Zero was bit faster than the Wildcat. I'd take the Zero much above 10,000 feet!! The Wildcat down low was on equal terms as far as speed. So I'd be the opposite of you.
@stephenkalatucka6213
Жыл бұрын
The Hellcat outclasses them both. The Zero wins in esthetics.
@evidenceandreasonswildfron6638
Жыл бұрын
“One Zero against one Grumman is not an even fight, but with mutual support two Grummans are worth between four and five Zeros, and so on up.” -- Major Joseph N. Renner, Wildcat pilot and a veteran of Guadalcanal.
@Tom--Ace
Жыл бұрын
Yeah clearly false though - the Japanese and zero dominated until attrition caught up with them, the kido butai was lost through an ambush (code breakers for the win) and the old experienced pilots were gone and the hellcat had arrived. American numbers, not quality, won through, not unlike the eastern front
@neurofiedyamato8763
Жыл бұрын
@@Tom--Ace While true to an extent, the engagements involving both the Wildcats and Zeroes prior to Midway and Guadalcanal isn't really that lopsided. But one needs to look at the context of the fights themselves. Since in one case during Coral sea, the Wildcats shot down a bunch of Zeroes but that's because the Zeroes went to intercept the bombers instead etc. And other times, one side surprised ambushed the other, or had a energy advantage etc. On paper I think the A6M Zero is a better aircraft in almost all areas except that it wasn't by such a huge margin that appropriate tactics or tactical scenario couldn't counteract. And often times, the F4F did manage to leverage factors beyond just the airplane itself to even the odds. The difference between a A6M and a F4F isn't as big as the F6F would be to the A6M where even veteran A6M pilots succumbed.
@Tom--Ace
Жыл бұрын
@@neurofiedyamato8763 isn't that lopsided? The Japanese dominated in the pacific! Midway would not have been possible without code breaking efforts, and would have been lost. The US would ultimately have won of course, but not till attrition hit the Japanese, the kido butai pilots were all killed and the US industrial output could be brought to bear with newer hellcat and other fighters. The wildcat was a terrible fighter to go up against the zero and was nowhere near on par. What made the difference was ultimately code breaking allowing the US to set an ambush and wipe out Japan's best (during which the zero dominated, but constant attacks from land based aircraft disrupted carrier operations long enough for dive bombers to reach the carriers while the zeros were busy elsewhere) Not until the hellcats superior speed allowed the US to employ boom and zoom against the zeros was the US able to mount a fighter approaching parity to the zero. Wildcat vs zero, no contest the zero is the better fighter. Hellcat vs zero is where it begins to be a close call
@cattledog901
Жыл бұрын
@Tom The Wildcat was not a "terrible" fighter and wasn't completely outclassed by the zero like you claim. Number one U.S. pilots didn't need the Hellcats speed to boom and zoom. The Wildcat had a great diving capability and could easily out dive the zero and boom and zoom was used in many early war battles. Boom and zoom doesn't require a higher top speed than the fighter you are chasing it requires a better diving ability. At above 280 mph the Zeros control surfaces would become stiff and it could barely roll, at above 350 it was completely locked up, something the Wildcat never suffered from. 2nd the Zeros carburetor would starve the engine of fuel when the nose was shoved down abruptly or when flying upside down. The Wildcats pressure injected carburetor had no such problems. 3rd the zero was only marginally faster below 18000 ft where most combat occurred. 13-20 MPH isn't an overwhelming advantage and isn't something the Wildcat couldn't overcome with a dive. 4th the Wildcat has self sealing fuel tanks and rear armor that could stop a .50 and a windscreen that could stop a .30. The Zero has no armor and no self sealing fuel tanks which was seen as a key feature on fighters as the war dragged on. They were two very different fighters built for diff doctrines. Viewing them in the lense that only speed and maneuverability mattered just reeks of ignorance and hubris on the subject of actual air combat. Do some actual research.
@ZealothPL
Жыл бұрын
Energy fighters will usually end up beatimg turn fighters in a 1v1, with great difficulty and skill involved. With multiple ones covering each other the turn fighters enter despair mode, as the advantages of energy fighting become even more pronounced then
@AinlayPhysics
Жыл бұрын
On the topic of the zeros 7.7 mm at 750 m/s and the the canon 670m/s. This would make aiming for a pilot difficult to switch between and usless if fired together unless the target was right ahead. If you needed to lead the the moving target this would present a challange. If the target was only 200 meters away the 7.7 mm would hit 20 m before the cannons. This could mean that with 7.7 mm you may lead the target by 10 m and with the cannon 15 m lead would be needed.
@artmoss6889
Жыл бұрын
Decades after the war, when arcane Japanese operational records were finally being translated and made available in the West, historians could finally make objective comparisons of actual losses of Japanese and American fighters during 1942. From what I've read, the F4F had a slight survival advantage against the Zero of about 1.32 to 1. Not as significant as later American fighters, but enough to demonstrate that when the Wildcat's strengths when properly exploited, the plane could hold its own against the Zero.
@miskatonic6210
Жыл бұрын
Obviously you don't know how to read statistics. These numbers don't tell you anything. You need to look at every single scenario. When there where 10 wildcats fighting 1 zero and the zero destroyed 2 wildcats before going down...
@artmoss6889
Жыл бұрын
@@miskatonic6210 You may have point. The kill ratio I cited was not a statistic I have precise information about. I'm citing a stat that was developed by the author of a book on a comparison of the Zero and the Wildcat from records pertaining to the year 1942. It is clear however, that the Japanese lost the air war for Gudalcanal, and that battle was the epicenter for engagements between the Zero and the Wildcat during 1942. It would appear that the Wildcat was not overmatched during that six month air campaign.
@Mishn0
Жыл бұрын
And that doesn't even take into consideration that the American pilots were completely green (at least in actual combat) and the Japanese pilots had been fighting over China for several years. And the Wildcat STILL had a scoring advantage over the Zero.
@VersusARCH
Жыл бұрын
Wildcats had radar vectoring. Zeros did not.
@horatiusromanus
Жыл бұрын
@@VersusARCH War is a team sport. If you have a better team, you will do better overall.
@jamesvandemark2086
Жыл бұрын
Our relative flew the SBD, then switched to fighters in the FM-2, finally to his favorite "horse", the Corsair. He loved it.
@timf2279
Жыл бұрын
Our?
@jamesvandemark2086
Жыл бұрын
@@timf2279 My first cousin(some age difference!). Our=big family.........
@Brian-nw2bn
Жыл бұрын
What a great presentation of two of the most iconic WW2 fighters, so glad I found your channel! Please do more of these Vs. videos!! Subscribed and shared brother! Looking forward to all of your future content ! God bless
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Brian, really appreciate this comment!
@scoutdynamics3272
Жыл бұрын
"The aircraft had nothing to do with our victory! Give the enemy our planes! We will take theirs and we will still win!" General Chenault of the Flying Tigers
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
When it comes to Claire, I'd believe him. Great aerial tactician.
@FuzzyMarineVet
Жыл бұрын
Were I forced to chose between the A6M and the F4F, hands down I pick the Wildcat. In the Zero one's first mistake is often his last. In the Grumman Ironworks kitten you could recover from a mistake and fight on, even if you had to find a new airplane.
@greggs1067
Жыл бұрын
The main flaw in the Wildcat is that its landing gear is too narrow for carrier use. I spoke to a Wildcat pilot at an airshow and he said that aside from takeoffs and landings, it was a fine aircraft. He did not recommend it overall.
@miskatonic6210
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, a lot of dead US pilots also thought this pos could save them from mistakes. Funny how this propaganda of sturdy planes protecting the noobs still works to our day.
@thevortex6754
Жыл бұрын
@@greggs1067 I think that was kind of the trend for carrier based aircraft, at least for the US and Germany as far as I know, to have a narrow landing gear. The F3F and F4F have the same landing gear type, and similar with the BF 109 with a narrow wheel base as well, they were all designed and made in the mid 30s, so it was likely the trend. But that was a problem none the less for carrier operations which is why Grumman revised the gear for the F6F Hellcats.
@Thekilleroftanks
Жыл бұрын
@@thevortex6754 actually the bf109 was common for the time however Germany did go the other way. And the reason the bf109 was never engineered to have a wider landing gear (there's actually a bf309 which had a wider wing landing gear and a forward landing gear in the shape of a tricycle, but didn't go into production due to not being any better than current bf109s) was for cost reasons
@thevortex6754
Жыл бұрын
@@Thekilleroftanks thank you for the info, I never knew about the 309.
@JustinAH
Жыл бұрын
I'll take the F4F every time for armor protection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and that battery of .50cal machine guns. Never dogfight a Zero or Oscar one vs one, attack in pairs from altitude advantage. I've noticed the FM-2 Wildcat sounds like a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, which is cool 😎
@ahha6304
Жыл бұрын
If I have to pick between these 2, Wildcat, but anything in WWII, Hawker Sea Fury, that thing was DBS 1969 of the sky
@johnnyallred3753
6 күн бұрын
I would fly the Grumman F4F hands down, because of the Grumman Iron works philosophy of toughness and reliability and Marine Corps and Navy Air to air combat training thought out the war over the Japanese philosophy and training with the Zero. Wildcat tought and reliable over the Zero a good light weight fighter program.
@terryvanicelli267
Жыл бұрын
I'll take the Wilcat. One overlooked issue pointed out in Eric Beregud's Fire in the Sky is the probability that the Wildcat will perform closer to spec than the Zero. The F4F benefited from service by techs far better trained and with a superior parts pipeline. Another critical factor is US radios being far more reliable than Japanese models, making teamwork easier. Most US fighters could out maneuver the A6M at speeds over 250 or so mph (not easy to maintain!). Throw in more effective firepower and protection, which pretty much rounds out the list.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
That's a very interesting point about the Wildcat's serviceability. I agree that the radio situation was impactful for the Japanese, especially for land based units. I remember my radio failing once on a cross country flight, we didn't know it at the time. We ended up touching down at a provincial airfield (no tower) only to look up during our landing run and see another aircraft coming into land at our 12 O'clock. Luckily it was just our receiver that was N/O and the other plane had an instructor and a student using the situation as a training exercise. Didn't stop us bricking ourselves though.
@yak55dvr39
Жыл бұрын
Very well done. I remember a documentary on the F4F Wildcat vs. the A6M Zero-Sen comparing some of the capabilities and weakness of each that included commentary by some current F-18 jocks. The F-18 jocks were really down on the Wildcat. Quoting one, "If you were in a Wildcat and encountered a Zero all you could do is run." One should realize where their knowledge ends and their ignorance begins. John Lundstrom in his book "The First Team" is the best resource I have encountered on this subject. After an exhaustive review of encounters of Wildcats and Zeros he concluded that the outcome favored the Wildcat. It wasn't a runaway like the F6F Hellcat but it was a significant difference. In addition those with experience like Jimmy Thach admonished to never try to run from a Zero. As to the advantage of arming the Wildcat exclusively with one caliber of weapon vs. the Zero with both 30 cal and 20 mm - the issue is not exclusively range. The two different calibers create two different firing solutions mainly due to bullet drop. A high velocity light bullet will have a flatter trajectory than a heaver low velocity bullet. The latter will have more significant bullet drop at a distance. You need to aim higher with a slow heavy bullet at a given distance. Finally, another significant advantage, that should not be ignored, to the Wildcat was discovered when Koga's Zero was recovered in the Aleutians after the battle of Midway. Tests demonstrated that at higher speeds the Zero's ailerons would lose responsiveness and even lock up. This problem was addressed but the Japanese but never eliminated. Wildcat and P-40 pilots were then advised that they could dog fight (to a degree) a Zero if they kept their speed up. Or at least out roll the Zero at high speed and escape. Oh, and by the way I would pick the F4F.
@nuanil
Жыл бұрын
That's assuming the Zero survived the merge.... modern fighter pilots tend to merge and then engage turning everything into a some variation of a turning fight, instead of engaging and performing head-on gun runs.
@shaneflutsch2270
Жыл бұрын
Cannon and machine gun combo vs simple only cannon or only mg... That worked very well for the Germans. Any number of pilots wrote about how they would test the waters with their mg's and if they thought they were in the kill zone, they'd send in a couple cannon rounds to finish the job. At the end of the day, the individual skill of the pilot was a very important factor. Hearing any number of ww2 vets speak about how maneuverable the zero was makes a lot of things we hear nowadays just based off of someone's experience watching a few gun kill videos and playing war thunder... Just not the same. The laws of physics still apply, a heavier aircraft may have certain characteristics, whereas a smaller or lighter aircraft may have different characteristics
@MajorBorris
Жыл бұрын
Hoping to survive the war I choose the Grumman wildcat. Get some altitude with a good Wing man and zoom and boom until Hellcat and Corsair upgrades arrive.
@raylocke282
Жыл бұрын
I would wait for the " Hellcat"!
@thepatrioticpole2269
Жыл бұрын
Love these videos, pretty underrated. I would personally choose the wildcat (i'm just a bit of a freeaboo)
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching!
@jeffsherk7056
Жыл бұрын
I'd go with the Wildcat any day. Thanks for the great video.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Jeff!
@whosiskid
Жыл бұрын
If I'm by myself, I'd want a Zero. if with at least one fellow pilot, the Wildcat. As a long time student of US Navy, Marine, and Army Air Force tactics and strategies in the Pacific, I applaud this overall excellent video. I once intended to write a book on major contributions to WW II by native Arkansans (i.e., guys from Arkansas - the three major figures were going to be Jimmie Thach, Paul "Pappy" Gunn [who initiated the conversion of planes like the A-20 and B-25 into heavily armed ground attack planes by installing 4-8 forward firing 50 cal machine guns or even cannons, which led to planes like the B-25H and B-25J], and, in Europe, Footsie Britt, who won more major medals for heroism than any other American soldier in WW II [Audie Murphy won more medals overall, but not more of the very highest]). Illness interfered with the completion of the project, but I had completed my research on Thach and Gunn. I get upset sometimes because of the lack of credit that both Thach and especially Jimmy Flatley receive for their contributions in the war. Flatley is snubbed, I think, partly because when he and Thach were rewriting the fighter pilot flight manual immediately before the war, nearly all of Thach's suggestions won out over Flatley's (for instance, Thach wanted the Navy to stop using 3 plane units in combat, instead of going to 2 plane units; upon reflection, Flatley conceded that Thach's suggestion had merit, and they jointly recommended transitioning to 2 plane units, so that a 6 plane formation had 3 2-plane units, rather than 3 2-plane units). Also, Flatley achieved few aerial victories in the war, while Thach became an ace in limited aerial combat, most of it at Midway. Steve Ewing wrote a marvelous trilogy about US Navy pilots, devoted to Thach, Flatley, and Butch O'Hare respectively. I highly recommend all three books, along with the very best books that I know of on air combat in the Pacific, John Lundstrum's THE FIRST TEAM (a reference to a starting five on a basketball team, with Thach as team captain and Flatley and Butch O'Hare additional starters) and THE FIRST TEAM AND GUADALCANAL (on John Smith, Joe Foss, Marion Carl, Joe Bauer, and the like). BTW, Foss and the others had not only read Flatley's paper, but talked personally with Thach after Midway. The reason was that until Midway it was thought to be impossible to dog fight a Zero, yet Thach and two rookie pilots, using the Weave for the first time, fought between 15 and 30 Zeroes for over half an hour, all three Americans surviving, shooting down at least 4 Japanese planes (Thach had 3 Zeroes explode after hitting them while one of the rookies had one victory - in fact, Thach kept a running total of planes he managed to significantly damage by making a mark on his pant leg, but stopped at six when he realized there was no point, since he was almost certainly about to die; he did go on to damage several more Japanese planes, so that he did major damage to around 10 to 12 Zeroes, but given the desperate dog fight, neither he nor his rookies were able to confirm if any of those other planes crashed), and keeping the sky clear for the dive bombers when they arrived 15 minutes after the last torpedo plane left the area, one of the major factors in the US winning Midway. I would like to focus on one point the video made that is of the utmost importance: aerial gunnery. Thach had long been a major proponent of deflection shooting, something not emphasized in the IJN. Growing up in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Thach had been an avid hunter, especially ducks. The idea was to use a shotgun to lead a duck, hitting it were it would be, not where it was at the moment you pull the trigger. In teaching pilots how to shoot, he greatly preferred pilots who had grown up hunting, so that they had some aptitude for leading the target, which is what deflection shooting is. Navy brass had the idea of planes flying behind the enemy, shooting long bursts into an enemy plane. Thach wanted his pilots, however, to shoot at enemy planes the way you would a duck. Not a long burst, but a one-second burst that would be not unlike firing a shot gun. With 30 seconds of burst time (with the F4F-3), he insisted that pilots harbor their ammunition, tapping the firing button instead of holding it down. How effective this was for him at Midway can be seen in the fact that while he hit a dozen Japanese planes while flying an F4F-4 (and 18 seconds of burst time), he still had ammo when the dive bombers arrived, though he suspected he was about to run out, and was already telling his wing man that they were going to need to swap places soon. The massive limitation on this otherwise excellent gunnery philosophy is that the Navy was so underfunded in the Thirties and until late 1940, Thach and Flatley and the pilots they commanded had virtually no ammunition with which to practice. So they had cameras inserted in the wings. After dog fighting or shooting drills, they would take the film and examine it carefully, critiquing various pilots in their techniques. So while they had fired very few bullets going into combat in WW II, they had extensive practice shooting using film. It is important to realize that nearly every Navy pilot who would go on to distinction as combat pilots in WW II was a student of Thach and Flatley or O'Hare, including David McCampbell and Alex Vraciu. I do want to add that I think one detail in the video was incorrect. It is said near the end that the Zero and Wildcat was still battling for supremacy at the end of 1942. In fact, after Midway, the Wildcat enjoyed a significant kill ratio over the Zero. Prior to Midway, the Zero had a kill ratio advantage, but after Midway pilots had both Flatley's summary of the advantages of the Wildcat over the Zero and Thach's Weave tactics (which were also adopted by Army pilots in the European theater). During Guadalcanal the Cactus Air Force did extremely well against the Japanese and enjoyed quite an advantage over the Zero. Kind of a coda to the whole video, the US Navy wanted a fighter that would be the Zero in just about everyway, so after Midway, when Thach was reassigned from being the senior fighter pilot in the Pacific to being in charge of training materials for fighter combat training in Jacksonville, Florida (though he spent as much time at Disney Studios in Hollywood - he made, I think, ten training films with Disney for the Navy, while also narrating a couple of more general films for the entire US military - you can find most of these on KZitem, as well as "Don't Be a Dilbert," starring Bowery Boy Huntz Hall, but narrated by Thach). Anyway, Grumman arranged a meeting with Thach and asked him what they would need to do to have a plane that could completely outperform the Zero. The Hellcat was already in development, but they wanted to start making its successor. Thach emphasized rate of climb above all, and together they theorized that the ideal Zero-killer would have heavy armor for the pilot, would be very lightweight, but would have the largest possible engine. He also said that 4 guns with lots of ammo was better than 6 guns and less. The result was the F8F Bearcat, which was very lightweight, had a massive engine that could take it up to 460 mph, and had in most configurations 4 50 cal guns, though some had cannons instead. Grumman was in the process of delivering the Bearcat (and the Tigercat) when the war ended. In fact, the armed forces were engaged in dramatically overhauling their planes when the war ended, hoping to more or less retire a host of planes prior to invading the Japanese Home Islands.
@GlowHawk
Жыл бұрын
I used to fly the IL-2 1946 flight sim. The zero was a hoot to fly because it was so maneuverable, but it was a flying Ronson lighter. I was not good enough to stay out of the guns of the opposing fighters, so I always went back to a Spitfire, which was maneuverable and didn't explode around me as easily.
@corneliuscrewe677
Жыл бұрын
I loved that sim! I would always fly FW-190’s with the cannon pods. Perfect blend of speed, agility and firepower! Oh, the firepower!
@Blizofoz45
Жыл бұрын
Wildcat because it had shorter range. As a lowly truck driver I know how much fatigue from long drives can affect you over time. Especially if you're uncomfortable. So I think I'd rather have a shorter flight into battle and a shorter flight home.
@johnosbourn4312
Жыл бұрын
The FM-2 was built by GM's Eastern Aircraft division, hence the "FM" designation. This variant of the Wildcat was the production version of the Grumman XF4F-6 lightweight model. Also, the FM-2 was not developed for the Close Air Support role, instead, it was developed as a light performing fighter for service aboard the Navy's CVEs.
@thevortex6754
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for mentioning that. I didn’t even know there was an XF4F. Makes sense now, but on that topic, would you by any chance know about an (X)F4F-5??
@johnosbourn4312
Жыл бұрын
@@thevortex6754 There is no "Dash-5" Wildcat. The Wildcat models were the unproduced XF4F-1, XF4F-2 F4F-3, F4F-4, F4F-7; photo bird, and XF4F-8, all from Grumman, with Eastern Aircraft building the F4F-4 under licence from Grumman; designated as the FM-1, and creating a production version of Grumman's XF4F-8, designated as the FM-2 "Wider Wildcat."
@stukaking9452
Жыл бұрын
It really depends on the settings , in a neutral environment and 1vs1 engagement the Zero is the better choice. In the grand scheme of the war the wildcat might be better but a lot of the factors that make it "better" dont really have sth to do with the aircraft itself (better production facilities,pilot training etc.) As a pilot, the grand scheme might not be as important to you whereas individual engagements do. Its the same when people argue the sherman is better than the panther or tiger because bigger production numbers, better range etc.: Yes ,you might be able to field more of them but as a tank commander whos right then and there on the battlefield, which one would you rather be sitting in? Thats why my pick has to be the zero. It is the better offensive weapon and if you know what you´re doing, you can dance around almost anything in the sky while making sure you dont get hit.
@isolinear9836
Жыл бұрын
Despite so many such videos on the F4F and A6M, your rendition was very comprehensive and enjoyable, a worthy addition to the pantheon of this history. Well done.
@lenrichardson7349
Жыл бұрын
Regarding the two different guns. The main factor is the muzzle velocity. A fast muzzle velocity round needs less lead on the moving target to hit it. A slow velocity round needs more lead than the fast round or it will miss because the target has gone. The difference between an arrow and a bullet for example. So you have a huge challenge to get both the guns to hit whatever the gun sight is aimed at. You could set up the guns on the ground to hit a static target but that is not going to help you in the air. Of course if you are heading straight at a bomber then less of an issue. As the range increases then you start to have to compensate for gravity as the slow round would start to fall away before the fast round.
@scottfoster2639
Жыл бұрын
Very well done. You have a knack for speaking about potentially dry information and making it interesting. I always thought the 'cats' always looked unfinished. Seems the wing tips should have been addressed. Rounded tips allow for less drag and higher speeds. The square seems to allow for faster rate of climb. Here is an old study from the 30s doing a rudimentary search on the web: Stall Speed Max. Speed Rate of Climb Square ..... 55.5 mph 146.3 mph 1136 ft/min Round ...... 57.7 148.0 1107 ft/min Hoerner .... 56.5 145.6 1126 ft/min
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Scott, nice of you to say that.
@johnneill990
Жыл бұрын
While Thatch was working out the Weave all Wildcat pilots were working out switching from the Vic to the Pair of Pairs as recommended by reports from Europe. No small feat in that the fighter division went from 6 to 4 so like what are those two other guys going to do now? This shows their level of training that these pilots were able to make this major tactical change literally on the fly. The RAF took years to drop the Vic which looked good on paper but failed in practice. The Japanese never dropped the Vic but their version of it was so loose our guys didn’t know that they were flying any formation at all. So, to answer your question Wildcat Vs Zero: Regardless of what you fly, if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
@mikeat2637
Жыл бұрын
One of the things that is rarely talked about is the training of USN naval pilots prior to WW II. Navy and Marine fighter pilots were actually taught deflection shooting as a matter of course, which was not done by the USAAC at that time. The British did use deflection shooting to a certain extent, as did the Germans and the Japanese, but it was mandatory in the USN. And this helped The First Team, as they were called, to be able to keep par with the superior speed and maneuverability of the Zero and the combat experience of the IJN fighter pilots. The Zeros were so lightly built because the Japanese fighter pilots wanted speed and maneuverability over everything else. It penalized them very seriously once the US naval pilots learned the weak points of the Zero. The fixed-wing Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat was the first to encounter the Zero in the days just after Pearl Harbor during the hit-and-strikes against Japanese-held island bases. By the time of Coral Sea and then Midway tactics had been developed by Commander John S Thach to counter the Zero's advantages. His Beam Defense Maneuver, later called The Thach Weave, enabled pilots working in a 2 plane section to be able to cover each other's tails during a Japanese attack. The Wildcat's tough construction and the addition of armor plate for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks helped many pilots survive what could have been deadly. Historian John Lundstrom has written a two-volume story called The First Team that chronicles those early days of the war.
@haggis525
Жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation! Obviously two iconic aircraft of war 2 in the Pacific. While I think the Zero is the prettier of the two - I'd take the Wildcat if I could pick my steed! I prefer firepower and protection in a fight any day! And - truth be told, the chunky little Wildcat has its own sexy appeal! Again, awesome video!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Christopher
@SkunkworksCamaro
Жыл бұрын
Thoroughly entertained for an hour. I learned a ton. Subscribed. Thanks
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching mate!
@sinisterisrandom8537
Жыл бұрын
4 aircrafts I would fly. A6M8 the last zero ever built and the best in terms of upgrades and armaments. The Ki-84 Hei Mainly for the 20mm's and 30mms The P-40 Kitty Hawk as I continue to nickname them. As well as the G-10N1 Fugaku
@nathancroud3730
Жыл бұрын
Something that may be fascinating to consider: Imagine a US Navy fighter squadron, but outfitted with Zeros. Being able to exploit the most maneuverable aircraft of the war while also having superior gunnery skills and fighting tactics would probably make that squadron the single most frightening thing to go up against in the world. For that reason, I'd probably take the Zero. That being said, it's a glass cannon, while the F4F is much sturdier. It's definitely an intriguing thought experiment though. The Zero was a thorn in the Navy's side, even after the arrival of superior aircraft in the pacific, like the Corsair and Hellcat
@dennismason3740
Жыл бұрын
Whenever you see a Zero in an old movie it has raised rivets for days. The filmmakers often used T-38 trainers (Texan) as stand ins for the Zero.
@johnprice1700
Жыл бұрын
You mean AT6. The T-38 is a jet trainer.
@dennismason3740
Жыл бұрын
@@johnprice1700 - thank you for the data. The pilots in YT never talk about the Texan or they gloss over the designations like I know what they're talking about. The Texan needs its own vid.
@johnosbourn4312
Жыл бұрын
Those "Zeroes" were built from AT-6s for the movie TORA-TORA-TORA.
@dennismason3740
Жыл бұрын
@@johnosbourn4312 - yes! I love that movie.
@panzerdeal8727
9 ай бұрын
If I repeated myself...No excuses ! SUCH an underrated aircraft. Like the Hurricane.
@sharzadgabbai4408
Жыл бұрын
Pug Southerland vs Saburo Sakai over Guadalcanal? And for that matter, The Swede in a SBD Dauntless taking on three Zeros and dispatching same. Australian Whirraway jumps a zero and shot it down. A P40 used shot and scoot to drop three late in the ear. And finally, the B24 pilot in his parachute who put a .45acp into the head of theZero pilot circling with canopy open .
@ronbyers9912
Жыл бұрын
The doctrine taught the American pilots was similar to the doctrine employed by German aces in WWI and WWII and by successful American and Commonwealth pilots over the world. It was the same tactic employed by the Flying Tigers in China. It is basically the same boom and zoom attack that made the Americans champions of Korea. Get above the enemy, dive on him, shoot and dive away. Never try to turn with your enemy. Turning fights might be fun but in the best of circumstances you will give your opponent a chance. Never give your opponent a chance.
@thomaspinney4020
Жыл бұрын
Captain 'Winky" Brown, who more more types of aircraft than any man who ever lived, had a soft spot for the Wildcat. He preferred it to both the Zero and the Hell cat. Of course, he had two kills in Wildcats.
@rogerduncan2603
Жыл бұрын
Winkle Brown, he also shot down condors in Atlantic
@BrianWMay
Жыл бұрын
Discussing the specs, you said the range of the Zero was 'a hundred and ten miles' when the figure showed 1010. Thoroughly enjoyed the video. Having read Saburo Sakai's book several times I was under the impression the F4F was a lame fighter. This comparison rather refutes that impression. So thank you.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Did I? Must have missed that in post-production. Thanks, I'll make sure to catch those errors in future.
@ME-xh7zp
Жыл бұрын
Fysa the muzzle velocity issue was gone by the A6M3 with the later Type 99s. It was only about half the difference that the late war Luftwaffe had with the MK 108 as well so it's debatable how much it mattered.
@cavalryscout9519
Жыл бұрын
Just gonna add in that a big reason why the Japanese didn't go with a .50"/12.7mm MG was that their 12.7mm rounds were based the Italian Breda 12.7x81mm, which had very poor ballistics as compared to .50 BMG (12.7x99m), or to most rifle-caliber rounds. 12.7x81 was over 100 meters per second slower than .50 BMG had shorter range, steeper muzzle drop, and a lighter projectile (decreasing both it's penetration, and it's ability to carry explosive or incendiary filler), while the Ho-103 machinegun had similar weight to aircraft-mounted M2 machineguns (or even to the type 99 20mm cannons). The Japanese 12.7mm had only slightly better ballistics than their 20mm, it suffered from most of the same problems in range and accuracy, so it wouldn't have bridged the gap between the accuracy of rifle-caliber MGs, and the power of cannons. The US leaned heavily on their .50 caliber guns because .50 BMG is an exceptional round, not because 12.7mm is a particularly good caliber. The bullet has no appreciable drop at 500m, retains it's velocity exceptionally well, and has exceptional accuracy, all of which make the gun easier to aim and longer-ranged than most WWII aircraft armament. It's a round which is still used in sniper rifles (and the M2 machinegun could be used in single-shot mode as a sniper weapon) and still considered one of the best rounds for long range shooting. Since the gun didn't need any adjustment in elevation to hit at WWII engagement ranges, it was easier to use for less-skilled pilots.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Great information, thanks!
@jbepsilon
Жыл бұрын
I think the 'ultimate WWII fighter armament' prize goes to the high velocity belt-fed 20mm autocannons like the British Hispano or the German MG151/20. I'm not that familiar with Japanese aircraft guns but IIRC they had something similar which was used in late-war versions of the Zero. But, these weren't available early in the war, and indeed the 7.7 MG's and the low velocity drum-fed 20mm cannons were both problematic, their combination doubly so. That being said, the .50 BMG was a decent performer, also helped in part by the introduction of API ammo instead of the classic 'ball' as the standard load. Though the M2 was quite heavy for the punch it delivered. Another big advantage was, not the .50 BMG itself, but the US insistence on a uniform battery of the same type of gun, making shooting easier as there was no need to take into account different ballistics.
@cavalryscout9519
Жыл бұрын
@@jbepsilon Yeah, by the war's end high-velocity 20mm cannons were definitely a better choice, and the US suffered in Korea for sticking with the .50 BMG. My main intent was to point out that 12.7mm/.50" wasn't a viable choice for the Japanese. It worked for the US because the US had been continually developing 12.7mm rounds and guns since 1917, and had really had the ideal gun and ammunition of that caliber. Everything had been produced at scale and widely fielded since 1933, and the M2 could be easily reconfigured for a variety of roles. Other countries dropped most development of anti-material rifles and machineguns after WWI, and didn't begin developing 12-15mm guns and ammunition again until the mid 1930s, when it was starting to be apparent that 7-8mm machineguns would not be adequate. By that time the US was 10 to 20 years ahead on developing guns of that caliber. It's not that 12.7 was best, but the US had the best 12.7mm guns possible.
@wolffweber7019
Жыл бұрын
Top competitors: 20 mm British Hispano 15 mm / 20 mm MG 151 .5” M2 each of them had some weaknesses but they were simply excellent. MG 131 also wasn’t bad, decent calibre lightweight gun. All the rest was second class.
@TXGRunner
Жыл бұрын
There's a reason we still make 50BMG, 50BMG is still used in some sniper systems, and there are worldwide 50BMG target competitions. The cartridge design is extremely effective.
@rudyyarbrough5122
Жыл бұрын
One of my favorite stories is when a top Japanese ace tried his well-honed trick on any Wildcat that tried to follow him straight up into a stall where he would watch them stall first and then zoom down behind them as they fell and shoot them down. He had done this many times but did not know the Navy now had the F 6 F that looked a lot like the F 4 F but had much more power. As the Japanese looked back for the stalling Wildcat, he saw the enemy on his tail as HE stalled. The Hellcat ate his lunch! Good video and thank you for putting it together. I have read about pilots selecting two guns to not fire until the other two ran out of ammo. How they did it I am not sure. Maybe a circuit breaker or fuse? I do know each gun had an electrical solenoid to fire it but I do not know if each one had a CB or fuse.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
I love that story too. I think you are right, other viewers have said it was possible to cock only the guns you wanted to fire, so it was easy to save two for later. This is why I love you guys so much, I learn so much from the brain trust!
@rudyyarbrough5122
Жыл бұрын
@@CalibanRising I love seeing aviation combat from the WWII era and as an old F4B pilot from Vietnam, it makes my heart beat faster just thinking of the excitement and terror that they experienced. I faced hostilities but nothing like the massive dogfights they lived through. The F4F and the F4B had the same stupid canopy that blended into the fuselage. The rear vis was terrible even though we had a RIO in the rear seat. Great work keep it up!
@ret7army
Жыл бұрын
A possible answer to the number of guns being fired comes from the Vietnam War... an A1E Skyraider (AKA Spad) pilot providing cover on a rescue mission decided that only using 2 of his 4 20mm cannons would allow him to remain on station longer. To achieve this he only charged (armed/loaded) 2 of the guns, later when he used up the ammunition in those guns he charged the other 2. If something similar was done by the earlier Wildcat pilots the could go into combat with say 4 .50 calibers and then later still have 2 remaining.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks. It must have been something like that. Someone else has suggested it might have been as simple as pulling the circuit breakers for the guns you didn't want to use just yet.
@TheScandoman
Жыл бұрын
Good presentation! Solid 'A' Follows fundemental principles of competition/combat: know yourself; know your opponent; stay alive until you can 'hit' when it will do the most damage; And "Just because you know what they are doing, doesn't mean you know HOW they are doing it!": details are important!
@davefellhoelter1343
Жыл бұрын
I grew up playing on Vaught Air grounds, still had a Vaught sign on a wall couple years ago when I was in a New Parking Lot.
@chrislong3938
Жыл бұрын
Your analysis kept me glued to my monitor on a subject I already understood pretty well for years! You are an excellent speaker, just as I'm a lousy writer! ;-( I've played with flight sims since long ago and most flight modeling by the game designers made both of these planes behave as described by history. The Zero is very light to the touch but the plane flames if you just look at it wrong! The Wildcat is just the opposite! It's interesting to me that when in a game, flying a Wildcat, and not too concerned about being shot down (or up for that matter), I'll tend to quit using 'boom and zoom' tactics and invariably go down in flames trying to turn with a Zero! When flying a Zero, I'll get into a turning fight and still get shot up (or down) in a hurry! Hmm, maybe it's me and not the plane's fault??? Nah, never!!!!!!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Chris. I think I'm the same as you, always get drawn into a turning fight in those games, lol.
@mainiacjoe
Жыл бұрын
Horikoshi, out loud, "Sure, we can do that!" Horikoshi, in his head, "Escort fighter, interceptor, survivability: pick two."
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
lol
@TXGRunner
Жыл бұрын
Read his book; it is fascinating how he approached these mutually exclusive design requirements.
@stephenkalatucka6213
Жыл бұрын
"Pick two."-- Moe Howard (3 Stooges)
@RobertGraziose
4 күн бұрын
The lessons learned by the Wildcat were applied to the design of the F6F Hellcat. Uncontested in American air to air kills. Over 5000 19 to 1 kill ratio.
@chrisdominguez7485
Жыл бұрын
Great video!! Extensive background and insightful comments. Thank you!!!
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@kenkruger481
Жыл бұрын
For an insight into the training of the IJN fighter pilots prior to Pearl Harbor, may I recommend the books by Saburo Sakai, a highly successful fighter pilot ace. I read his first book, which I believe is "Samurai" which outlined in excellent detail the regimen each IJN fighter pilot endured from basic military through flight training. He also wrote a second book "Winged Samurai: Saburo Sakai and the Zero Fighter" which may have also addressed his initial and advanced flight training.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Ken, I'll be sure to put it on my wish list!
@leeshackelford7517
Жыл бұрын
I'll second that recomendation The First Team is also very good
@michaelnaven213
Жыл бұрын
Excellent work, I found the book very informative on the Japanese training of pilots and the life of those pilots during the war.
@TXGRunner
Жыл бұрын
If heading into combat, Wildcat hands down: pilot protection and far less likely to burst into flames*. As a pilot, for flying fun, I would still choose the Wildcat over the more agile Zero. Joe Foss loved the Wildcat. He said something to the effect of it was the only (or among the few) aircraft he flew that could take any control input without damage, including a power dive. Most aircraft can be damaged by radical control inputs (or severe turbulence at altitude), but the Wildcat had no limits. When doing crazy maneuvers to avoid cannon fire, that's a great feature. I am biased though, the Wildcat is my favorite aircraft since ~1973. About the outer guns on the F4F-4 - there is no switch; they pulled the breaker or equivalent at that time. That might be in Barrett Tillman's book. I believe some armor and self-sealing tanks were retrofitted to F4F-3s before the war started. I could not find reference and my Wildcat books/materials are not with me, but I am more than 50/50 sure. The F4F-4 has better/more armor for sure.
@zororosario
Жыл бұрын
Excellent review, seems like a Dance Macabre prefectied thorough repetition. Thanks
@leeshackelford7517
Жыл бұрын
The F4F did a great job. Anyone other than me read The First Team?
@ark-mark1
Жыл бұрын
About the weapons ranges. Slower and heavier shell drops much more than a 7,7 bullet does. So they hit on same spot only at distance they were syncronized in. Before and after such distance it came difficult to hit with both weapons on the target. That's why they preferred to shoot with one weapons system at a time. US fighters on the other hand sprayed lethat swarm of bullets that had same ballistic caracteristics. Many guns had so much recoil that no bullet went exactly the same line but the amount of the guns with the high rate of fire made it sure that the air was packed with bullets so it turned the effect to resemble a shotgun shot pattern. Only that shotgun shot is fewer in numbers.
@ChuckJansenII
Жыл бұрын
During 1942 I would rather have flown the Land Locked Co. Navy OTD-18 Office Typing Desk. If I had to choose, though, I would have to go with the rugged F4F Wildcats using the tactics of Jimmy Thatch.
@honkhonkler7732
Жыл бұрын
I would definitely choose the F4F in a wartime scenario. You get the impression the Zero is probably more fun to fly when nobody is shooting at you, but it's fragile, unarmored and likes to catch fire. The F4F is built like a bank vault in comparison.
@cipher8971
Жыл бұрын
I don't know if the mechanism is similar or not to the Zero, but I took this reference from the movie The Eternal Zero and an a latest WW2 themed anime called KanColle 1944 to discuss the firing mechanisms on the Zero. In the Eternal Zero, there was a scene where a Zero vs Zero situation (Instructor vs Subordinate) in the middle of an air battle, the subordinate open fire to his instructor aircraft out of rage with the 7.7mm with it's frontal trigger on the throttle. Unfortunately in this movie I believe there wasn't a single scene where they switched to 20mm cannons and fire it. The second reference I took is from Kancolle 1944, there was a scene where the N1K1 Kyofu (this aircraft shared the same armament loadout with the Zero, 2×7.7mm MGs and 2×20mm cannons) floatplane fighter gun trigger is actually separated for each guns or that was what I believe until I saw this video discussing about a switch between MGs and Cannons on the Zero. The first scene they showed the pilot pulls the frontal trigger and the nose/cowling 7.7mm guns starts firing, and there's a side switch on the throttle where pilots used their thumbs to switch (either it's a gun selector to use 20mm and then fire it with the frontal trigger or it was actually the 20mm trigger itself) and the next scene shows the N1K1 firing it's 20mm cannons. From this 2 reference, and a third one actually from A6M Zero cockpit photos on the internet showing me that there was indeed a side switch on the throttle. The question that left out just like on minute 33:48 is that is the side switch is actually just a gun selector switch to 20mm cannons or is it actually the trigger for the cannon itself?
@forestgreen315
Жыл бұрын
A point of information: US Navy and Marine pilots are NAVAL aviators. Coast Guard aviators go through the same training, but are called Coast Guard Aviators. They all go through the same training and wear the same wings upon graduation. The NAVAL services include Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. In US terminology, any service which is primarily characterized by its association with the sea is a NAVAL service. The US Navy is only one such service. You can throw in the NOAA and some other cats and dogs under the term NAVAL. If someone made this distinction in previous comment, I apologize for repetition.
@SuperchargedSupercharged
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the long and comprehensive video, very well done.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@Colt45hatchback
Жыл бұрын
I'd pick the zero, i feel like i would do better rushing through an ooda loop in a light nimble aircraft with the excess range to be able to not be worried about how long the battle took in regards to fuel useage in max continuous power or overboost. Also of note, i feel like the americans just observed the japanese boom and zoom tactic and adopted it themselves, which with their armored aircraft that was good in a dive, worked better for them than it did for the japanese as it required you to breifly be in the enemys sights while pulling back up to altitude. So not long enough to get the 20mms on target, and being somewhat immune to long range 7.7mm, the wildcat could apply the tactic to better use. Also in a few japanese ace interviews the pilots (who survived) seemed to disregard the 20mm as the bullets dropped like a stream of piss (their words) so they just used the 7.7's and got closer and always aimed for the wing roots.
@oldcremona
Жыл бұрын
47:00 Someone needs to do a detailed video biography about Maj. John Smith. He is not nearly as well known as marine aces like Boyington, Foss, Marion Carl, etc.
@DIREWOLFx75
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, this is definitely not an easy choice. I think i would lean towards the Wildcat, despite that the Zero advantages might fit me better. For the simple reason that i want something a bit more durable if i were to go flying. About the Zero cowl guns, IIRC they couldn't switch them for heavier MGs because they wouldn't fit, apparently it was tight even with the lighter MGs. I think they also had a lack of suitable guns at the time. The ones they had were unsuitable(or outright incapable of) for synchronization, or even too heavy. As an interesting aside, i once found a short article about how the engine of the Zero was originally meant to be a more powerful one at 1350HP, but that the IJN rejected this for reason of weight, size and fuel consumption. Not been able to confirm, but i did find another source mentioning it at least.
@Nghilifa
Жыл бұрын
Some of the later model Zero's had 13mm Browning derived guns installed. THe A6m5b had a 13mm replace the 7.7mm in the cowling, and the A6m5c had two 13mm installed outboard of the 20mm cannon in the wings. Source: Wikipedia
@sargemarine3709
Жыл бұрын
I was in VMA 223, in A4's, in 1981, and was at Clark A/F Base then. Last COPE Thunder Operation, before the volcano ended that Base. Oorah !
@sargemarine3709
Жыл бұрын
I would want to be in the winner !
@vaerenbergh
Жыл бұрын
I see you used Pacific Fighter (extention/standalone game from the IL2 1946 game) and i love it. Best game of its time. I played a rufe campaign and a ki61 campain, but i was a preteen and had almost no comprehention of how much i would grow to love WW2 aircraft
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, Il2 1946 was a lot of fun back in the day, it still is a great game now for certain things (great plane selection for visuals!)
@Rusty_Gold85
Жыл бұрын
It still came down to who bombed who's airfields quicker, who was seen first in the sun and how many flying hours you can survive times flying experience. Cause as its shown in traffic I know the where slow drivers are , where the turn offs that block traffic and a F1 has to stop at the same traffic lights I do if I was sharing the road
@manhunter433
Жыл бұрын
The Zero was a beautiful & elegant aircraft, when you had an ace pilot at the controls it was a lethal predator. The F4 was clunky in form but very much and an effective fighter in its own right with the right pilot. The Zero sacrificed a lot of safety for its gracefulness and elegance. The Wildcat was more designed to take a hit and keep going. After the battle of Midway the Zero's reputation would never recover.
@corneliuscrewe677
Жыл бұрын
One on one, you’d be hard pressed to do better than the Zero, the Wildcat doesn’t have much advantage over any aspect of the Zero’s flight capabilities, though I’d argue it’s tougher. In typical combat conditions, I’d have no problem flying an F4F against Zeroes. USN Aviators did fine with them given the right tactics.
@Unmasking_Viandalisme
Жыл бұрын
Excellent! Thank you! Wildcat, on protective armour. My only ever flight was aboard a de Havilland Dragon Rapide. Currently, I "fly" a small, diesel van but try to keep it as close to the ground as possible.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
😀
@wildernessoutdoors6875
Жыл бұрын
Talking about the guns on the Wildcats, whether they were individually safetied. In the book Aces over Japan, a pilot talks about keeping two guns in reserve on his F4F, for the trip back from an escort mission from in the Solomons. Jeff De Blanc was the pilot. Story is called Point of No Return, pg. 92.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks. I'll see if I can pick up a copy and read more.
@TXGRunner
Жыл бұрын
I wrote above, I don't think there is a selector switch, they pulled the circuit breaker, fuse, or disconnected something just enough the outer guns didn't fire.
@wildernessoutdoors6875
Жыл бұрын
@@TXGRunner on page 98 Jeff says- “I switched on the last set of guns, the ones I usually kept for the return flight home as added insurance.” This was a routine practice, and I’ve read elsewhere in the same book that navy pilots would keep their guns on safe while launching and landing to avoid accidental discharges.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
@@TXGRunner ah, that would make sense if they were electrically operated. Thanks.
@20chocsaday
9 ай бұрын
Ammunition expenditure is limited by how long you hold your finger on the trigger. As a boy I heard references to 'two second burst' between ex RAF men who had served in Africa and Europe. I also got the impression that a fighter pilot seldom saw a target till it had gone. Just as the infantryman carried his rifle for many times more than he shot it.
@johnblizzard4338
Жыл бұрын
Great video, my father worked on Wildcats and Hellcats throughout the war and never ceased to extoll their attributes. That being said I would select the Gruman every time. I am a 16,000 hour pilot with no military aviation experience.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching John!
@mrbreck1
Жыл бұрын
@@CalibanRising That is the person to ask about the gun selection on the wildcat. I have not heard of a selector but i had heard from documentaries that a .50 cal was removed from each wing by some pilots to increase the ammo time and save a bit of weight.
@spudskie3907
Жыл бұрын
My favorite WWII aircraft and one that deserves more recognition (along with the P-40) for its contribution to victory in the Pacific. The F4F Wildcat may not have been the best fighter of WWII, but as Eric Clapton would sing, "It's in the way that you use it." By using tactics that took advantage of its strengths, it more than held its own during the desperate battles of 1941-42. When the Hellcat and Corsair joined the front lines in 1943, the quality of Japanese pilots was beginning to decline...thanks in no small part to the Wildcat.
@enscroggs
Жыл бұрын
36:36 Another difference between USN and IJN pilots in 1941 was the fact that USN pilots were required to cross-train on other carrier-based types like the SBD Dauntless and the TBD Devastator rather than specialize as fighter pilots. I presume this for tactical flexibility, however, by mid-1942 this idea was abandoned. Cross-training must have diluted the air-to-air fighting skills of many pre-war USN aviators, but it did put a highly competent dogfighter like Stanley "Swede" Vjatasa at the controls of a TBD on 8 May 1942 to claim three Zeros.
@501sqn3
Жыл бұрын
Well, the Zero had advantage on firepower, speed and service ceiling, and the F4F had armour, self sealing tanks and a better radio, possibly a bit tighter in the turn, hard to say isn't it !. Maybe, just maybe the Zero????
@SKILLED_two
Жыл бұрын
Never underestimate the importance of pilot rotation by the U.S. pilots. The Japanese fought until they died. American return to train untested recruits. This also eased pilot burnout, often returning refreshed veterans to the fray.
@ek2156
Жыл бұрын
After reading so many books about the battles in the pacific, I would definitely choose the F4F. It was not the best fighter in most fights, but it would take a beating and most of the time bring their pilots home safely. The Thatch Weave is the tactic that saved the USN aviation early in the war.
@Idahoguy10157
Жыл бұрын
The FM-2 model was optimized for service on small CVE escort carriers. Produced not by Grumman
@Activated_Complex
6 күн бұрын
Wildcat. The advantages it enjoyed are the advantages that get the pilot home and the advantages that win an air war. When we get into, this plane could turn inside this plane, could turn inside this plane, we're talking about a 1v1 fight. Which if it happened at all, would tend to be in the midst of a larger air battle, prowled by other fighters ready to pounce on someone who trades away their speed and altitude in exchange for degrees of turn rate. Do that victory roll quick, because you're about to get shot down. And also, I'd much rather have gone through OCS and training in the American system rather than that of the Imperial Japanese Navy, where the training of cadets from a young age was obsessively focused on hazing, abuse, deprivation, and in general inuring these future officers to hardship. I think there's more than ample evidence in the history of warfare to reveal as a self-serving lie, peddled by members of the elitist officer corps of military dictatorships, the notion that treating brave warriors like garbage yields better results.
@briannelson4493
Жыл бұрын
From what I’ve read the Japanese pilots were required to complete 700 hours of flight training before being sent to the front. The US pilots 300 hours. American instructors with 20 cadets were expected to graduate all where a Japanese instructor was expected to graduate only 4-5 cadets.
@uni4rm
Жыл бұрын
The US Navy was behind in tech, armament, and performance until 1943 with the Hellcat and Corsair. So it is no surprise they struggled so much in the Pacific early on. 50 caliber guns wasn't even standardized on Navy fighters until 1941, when every major power was using 20mm cannon.
@peterplotts1238
Жыл бұрын
Great video and intelligent commentary. A reminder that technology, in the typical case, only takes you so far. So much of the outcome depends on the pilot's skill, experience, and other circumstances, such as the respective objectives and whether they play to the advantage or disadvantage of the combatants and their aircraft. Japan and Germany eventually lost their best pilots and were unable to replace them, in contrast to the allies that vastly outpaced the Axis powers in the number of aircraft produced, the ability to introduce improved and innovative aircraft, deploy them to the theater of war quickly, and most of all, to replace lost personnel with well-trained pilots.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Peter. I agree, it's often largely the man and not the machine.
@peterplotts1238
Жыл бұрын
@@CalibanRising Thank you. I didn't understand that point until I heard it from another great military aviation KZitemr. I'm adding your channel to my subscriptions.
@ike_of_the_greil_mercenari465
Жыл бұрын
At the start of the video, no matter what you say I'd 100% take the Grumman F6F Hellcat or the F4F Wildcat. Both were incredible planes and the F4F was still in wide use at the end of war.
@philiphumphrey1548
Жыл бұрын
Great video. I may have missed it if it was mentioned, but didn't the Zero have the same problem with its carburettor float chambers as the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain? The wildcat had a pressure carburettor and could get away with a sharp dive.
@CalibanRising
Жыл бұрын
I didn't cover that, great fact! Thanks
@michael32A
Жыл бұрын
Yes, I could be wrong, but I'm 80% sure it was the Zero that was even worse than a Spit/Hurri... Because as well as being unable to dive, the carburettor's positioning would also only allow it to bank sharply one way (can't now remember whether left or right🤔). Once the allied pilots clocked the Zero *always* tried to evade someone on their tail by banking the same way, the Zeroes were sitting ducks, and _vice versa_ easier to evade too by just banking the opposite way.
Пікірлер: 697