This is quite the surprise!

[golani79]

Finally! 

[Katj]

On 8/12/2025 at 4:21 PM, Gambit21 said:

I am very well educated on the history of the war, the Zero, it’s design, the philosophy behind it, it’s weaknesses, and how it relates to other aircraft in the war and the philosophy behind those aircraft etc. 

The fact of the matter is that the Corsair and the Hellcat were contemporaries in the skies regardless of when the Zero first started flying (or hit the drawing table). When the Zero was designed is moot. All aircraft in the pacific were the product of mid to late 30's design.

The fact and the latest information / research indicates that the actual kill ratio in the war in 1943 (when skilled pilots were still around) was 1:1. Dive speed numbers, lack of self-sealing tanks, somewhat inferior cannons notwithstanding. Where the rubber meets the road (in actual combat/kill ratio) it was the equal of both the Corsair and the Hellcat…it’s contemporaries in combat.

Internet information on this subject is hugely out of date. I found one article with correct/ up to date info the other day but can't locate it now.

I'd suggest looking at Claringbould's recent work...all of his books are excellent, very well researched, worth reading for anyone interested in aviation in the PTO.

 

 

 

 

Well, the F6F first entered combat in late august 1943, and Corsairs were only around in small numbers. I guess there were some P-38. But regardless, I don't think those 1:1 stats reflect the competitiveness of the A6M5 vs the F6F-3 or F4U-1.

Wasn't it more that weaknesses discovered from captured Zeros and improved tactics enabled the US pilots to achieve a 1:1 ratio with predominantly the F4F wildcat?

Also, some veteran superaces of the Japanese being able to utilize the Zero effectively in 1943 speaks more to their ability than that of the aircraft.

No hate on the Zero though. It had a good run. It was the best for a good while.

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Katj said:

Well, the F6F first entered combat in late august 1943, and Corsairs were only around in small numbers. I guess there were some P-38. But regardless, I don't think those 1:1 stats reflect the competitiveness of the A6M5 vs the F6F-3 or F4U-1.

Wasn't it more that weaknesses discovered from captured Zeros and improved tactics enabled the US pilots to achieve a 1:1 ratio with predominantly the F4F wildcat?

Also, some veteran superaces of the Japanese being able to utilize the Zero effectively in 1943 speaks more to their ability than that of the aircraft.

No hate on the Zero though. It had a good run. It was the best for a good while.

Corsairs we’re in service in enough numbers to draw conclusions, as was the Hellcat (though fewer/land based units) There were enough confrontations in 1943 to ascertain where the aircraft stood in relation to each other once silly over-claiming is dismissed and actual loss records for both sides examined.

The later war scewed kill ratios were a result of decimated (experienced) Japanese pilot ranks as the war progressed.

A 1:1 kill ratio does, precisely illustrate the efficacy of the Zero against the other 2 types, there’s no debate to be had there unless one is hanging on to out-dated data, “winner gets to write the history” prophoganda and / or a bit of nationalism. Which…I get. I grew up watching Blacksheep Squadron with my Dad in the 70’s. and hearing/reading about how dominant the Corsair was.

In combat, on equal terms, …It’s the later scewed ratio that does not reflect the efficacy of the Zero due to unskilled Japanese pilots later in the war.

That’s just how it happened - I commented on this in the “paging Nick Grey” thread already.

Again I’d encourage examining more recent work.

 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Gambit21