American Wildcats vs Japanese Zeros

[asianboy]

Is it accurate to say that the American Wildcats have better "attack points" than the Japanese Zeros?

The Japanese used those very small bullets. They had "cannons", but those can only be used in certain situations.
Us Americans, on the other hand, had bigger bullets.

Is it safe to say that the Wildcats have better "attack points"?

[il padrino]

bullets were not everything in a dogfight...

[Sebdeas]

The Wildcats had far better armour. This combined with their better machine guns enabled them an advantage in certain situations.
After the Americans captured a Zero they were able to discover the flaws it had use this to their advantage.

But before that the Zero's had an advantage, due to their greater mobility.

[asianboy]

The Wildcats had far better armour. This combined with their better machine guns enabled them an advantage in certain situations.
After the Americans captured a Zero they were able to discover the flaws it had use this to their advantage.

But before that the Zero's had an advantage, due to their greater mobility.

Yes, I know that the Wildcats had better "defense points". I also know that the Japanese were more mobile and had better range. Basically, all that I am trying to find out right now is the "attack points".

When you said that the Wildcats had better machine guns, you meant that the Americans had better 'attack points" right?

[Watchman]

Something like six 12.7mm versus whatwasitnow, two 7.7mm ? IIRC during the Doolittle raid it was found out the latter pretty much just bounced off the Yank bombers' hulls...

Yeah, that's a pretty big firepower difference. Though the Zero *did* also have two 20mm cannons. Not too much ammo for those though.

On the face of it I would suppose you could say that the Zero was much more uncompromisingly designed for offense, with protection sacrificed for agility and firepower, whereas the Wildcat was a more balanced design.

[teh.frickin.pope]

What system are you talking about? It's hard to arbitrarily assign values to an unknown system of measurement. Are we discounting maneuverability for attack points? Is it attack points between fighters, or between all combat vehicles, as the cannon would definitely give an edge vs. more armored targets.

[asianboy]

What system are you talking about? It's hard to arbitrarily assign values to an unknown system of measurement. Are we discounting maneuverability for attack points? Is it attack points between fighters, or between all combat vehicles, as the cannon would definitely give an edge vs. more armored targets.

1. Yes, we would discount maneuverability.


2. "Attack points" would be for both the individual fighters and the whole squadron

[Farnan]

Another impact was in tactics. The Japanese preferred to duel with their enemy in the sky, while the Americans used more squadron tactics. Thus early in the war the Japanese had superior pilots but inferior squadrons (towards the end they had inferior pilots and squadrons).

[Town Watch]

.50s were indeed quite effective in the Pacific theatre due to the lack of armour plating in most of the Japanese fighter aircraft. By comparison, the American fifty cal wasn't really the "wonder-weapon" or the sort of best possible armament in airplanes in ww2 (the German heavy machine gun that was only really used by the Luftwaffe was a bit better) it takes lots of .50 bullets to kill more heavily armored aircraft such as FW190s, if we view the airplanes themselves individually. Also the later German 20mm nose mounted cannon was a monster in its category due to the Minengeschoss- shell. For experienced pilots the nose mounted 20-30mm cannons were very effective because it had less recoil than pretty much any comparable wing mounted armament.

Autocannons, and indeed explosive charge are important in aerial warfare, and indeed after Korea USAF itself started using them instead of the rather outdated (in aerial combat) 50 cal. Slow rate of fire and lack of explosive power wasn't viewed as preferrable in fast paced jet combat I guess.

Sabres did use them in Korea, but again Soviet made Migs were no slouches either, with their bigger 37mm autocannon (?), if/when it hits, its gonna hurt, really bad.

The big problem of course was the huge numbers advantage of the airforces on the western front.

[asianboy]

Okay, just to be certain.

Basically, the Americans have better firepower than the Japanese (with their small calibur and cannons), right?

[Town Watch]

well, depends on the airplane it self, 20mm cannons are better than .50 cal machine guns that the USAF pretty much exclusively used in WW2 both in the Pacific and European theaters, sure they had Bell Airacobras and stuff in service during the attack on Pearl Harbor, but these were phased out because of their unsuitability to tropical conditions.

some later Japanese planes were very heavily armed such as Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden (George)
2 x 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns
4 x 20mm cannons in the wings.

I'd say this armament is much better than 6 x .50s or at the very least equal. Also some earlier models of P-51 sported only four heavy machine guns

basically it's a bit tricky to often rate one armament set in WW2 aircraft over the other, in the way that e.g. History Channel Dogfights show often does. Good example of this could be IIRC when Messerschmitt 109-G6 with the nose mounted 30mm cannon and 2x13mm machineguns was rated lower in firepower than P-51D Mustang with its six machine guns.

Both have advantages over the other, 6 machine guns put a significant amound of lead in the air and perhaps increases the chance of scoring at least a hit on the target, but a single hit from Mk108 30mm cannon will on averige rip the wings off the P-51D or in other ways disintegrate the aircraft completely (which doesn't even really give much opportunity to bail out with a parachute either)

[Watchman]

OTOH the cannons had considerably lower rates of fire ergo hit probability, and carried much fewer ammunition to boot for fairly obvious practical reasons. Weren't they more useful against bombers and such, or something ?

The .50 BMG and similar calibres in other armies began their live as antitank rifle rounds, so obviously they had little trouble putting holes in aircraft... but then just putting holes in the things doesn't yet achieve much. (Which is why modern combat aircrafts' guns are autocannons instead.)

[Town Watch]

Cannons indeed, and especially the heavier kinds were used by the Germans against bombers, especially with the ME262 and something like 6x 30mm cannons, plus air-to-air rockets were truly devastating.

But to put it to perspective again, you only need a few or even one good hit with good cannon/s to kill the enemy, they frequently used the two machine guns for instance to help in aiming the main cannon in the ME109 on the eastern front, where as with machine guns only you need to be able to fire a burst and as such you need to keep your guns sighted at the enemy for a longer time, in order to get that longer lasting burst on the target. Which isn't really that easy either, the enemy usually tries to maneuver also.

The German 30mm cannon also had a decent rate of fire, higher than a .50 machine gun, a single machine gun that is. Usually also when the armament was centered around the nose, recoil was substantially reduced compared to any wing mounted armament.

[Old_Scratch]

You can't just assign stats to the two planes in question since they were used in very different ways. The much heavier Wildcat was better for fast diving attacks while the A6m was king in the turn fight. If you get a wildcat slow down to the deck against a zero, it's pretty much dead unless it can absorb all the remaining ammo that the zero pours into it, which has happened.

On the other hand, if an F4F dives in on a formation of zeros and speeds away and regains its altitude, then there isn't a thing the zero can do to catch it. This is pretty much how most US planes shot down zeros. Trying to out turn a zero is pointless.

They are both good at what they do.

EDIT: If you are trying to balance a game, then I would give the F4F higher "defense", and the Zero higher "attack". As mentioned, not entirely accurate, but I think that would be most balanced with vague historical aspects to it.

[asianboy]

Sorry for the necromancying.

What were the types of bullets that the Wildcat armors can handle? Can they handle the Americans' own guns?

[Spartacus the Irish]

Sorry for the necromancying.

What were the types of bullets that the Wildcat armors can handle? Can they handle the Americans' own guns?

There isn't a specific limit which plane armour can 'handle'. These aren't tanks - aircraft armour cannot stop aircraft being hit, the armour is there to protect the vital parts of the plane - pilot, crew, perhaps engines and fuel tanks. Even rifle caliber bullets could bring down any aircraft, but the more durable an aircraft was, the less likely it would be brought down without anything vital being hit.

The Wildcat could soak up a lot of damage due to the poor Japanese guns (their 20mm cannons being essentially poor, rushed copies of the German Oerlikon, and rifle-caliber 7.7mm MGs, of which Saburo Sakai claimed to have fired five-six hundred rounds into a Wildcat from close range, without bringing it down), the use of armour plating (the Wildcat engine being powerful enough to allow heavy chunks of metal to be welded into the plane, which the Zeke could not afford), and the general structural integrity of the all-metal monocoque construction of the fighter, which was a pretty big beast anyway.

[Nik]

especially with the ME262 and something like 6x 30mm cannons, plus air-to-air rockets were truly devastating.

The ME-262 carried 4 MK-108 30mm cannons. The MK-108 was comparabley light for a 30mm weapon, but the shorter barrel (resulting in a lower weight) also meant a lower projectile velocity. Lower Velocity means a higher curvature of the bullet path, making it alot harder to aim (something not truly solved until the radar-supported aiming of the sabre).
While it might sound as a good Idea to mix different calliber weapons in a fighter plane, in practice it made it alot harder to to aim, as the differing projectile paths made fire concentration that much harder to achieve.
The germans had a longer-barreled 30mm cannon, the MK-103, but it was far to heavy to fit into the structure of the small german fighters (the only fighter-usage seeing comabat I know of is the Fw190 in the ground combat role).

rushed copies of the German Oerlikon

Ahem, Oerlikon-Buehrle was a Swiss firm.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Ahem, Oerlikon-Buehrle was a Swiss firm.

The weapons used in German planes were manufactured by German companies, as opposed to the Allied usage of the weapon which had to make do with imports. And if you want to be that pedantic, the Oerlikon weapon was developed by a German, only transferring to Switzerland to evade the laws against weapons production in the Versailles Treaty. It was German in all but factory location.

[Darkhorse]

Oerlikon and Bofors cannon were used by all sides as well. And many are still in service. (Although heavily updated or new models.)

[Nik]

The weapons used in German planes were manufactured by German companies, as opposed to the Allied usage of the weapon which had to make do with imports. And if you want to be that pedantic, the Oerlikon weapon was developed by a German, only transferring to Switzerland to evade the laws against weapons production in the Versailles Treaty. It was German in all but factory location.

Please leave my "personal moment of swiss achievements" alone.
If we can celebrate the winning of the Americas Cup (by hiring the New Zealand Team), we can celebrate a bought out german design as well. ;-)
Btw, Oerlikon sold a production licence and the manufacturing plans to the british in 1940, shortly before the end of the battle of France. AFAIK the US set up a production as well, leading to legel complaints by Oerlikon.