Jump to content

Can't respond to Pacific Theater thread. Want to respond to this:


Recommended Posts

For some reason I can't respond to a topic in the Pacific Theater Discussion section, so I'll do it here. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57871-how-would-you-try-to-fight-a-well-flown-lightning-in-a-zero/?tab=comments#comment-883253

 

@Venturi  

 

I wouldn't.  If I was in the Zero and survived a head-on blow-through vs. a P-38, I'd keep going and run like hell.  I'd also be hoping 3 things:  1). That there is enough distance created by the time the 38 turns around, it's enough to escape. 2). That friends come along ASAP.  3). Provided I had the knowledge that a P-38 takes higher than average time to convert from cruise to combat mode, I'd hope he wasn't already rigged for combat on the merge and would have to do it while in pursuit.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

For some reason I can't respond to a topic in the Pacific Theater Discussion section, so I'll do it here. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57871-how-would-you-try-to-fight-a-well-flown-lightning-in-a-zero/?tab=comments#comment-883253

 

@Venturi  

 

I wouldn't.  If I was in the Zero and survived a head-on blow-through vs. a P-38, I'd keep going and run like hell.  I'd also be hoping 3 things:  1). That there is enough distance created by the time the 38 turns around, it's enough to escape. 2). That friends come along ASAP.  3). Provided I had the knowledge that a P-38 takes higher than average time to convert from cruise to combat mode, I'd hope he wasn't already rigged for combat on the merge and would have to do it while in pursuit.  

 

It's really not all that different from engaging a 109F4 or G in an I-16. You have a faster-climbing, higher speed enemy with an inferior turn rate who is able at all times to dictate the terms of the fight, should they wish to. In real life, if my orders permitted it, I would do as you say. There's little profit in engaging an enemy who is untouchable unless he is stupid. 

IRL vs. in-game, I find that you are more likely to be chased for extended periods on the deck after diving away than in real life. This goes for human pilots as well as the AI. It's a frequent occurrence on fighter-bomber sorties that I am chased all the way back to my territory and shot down by a pair (or even three or four) enemy fighters after already dropping my bombs and getting the hell out of dodge at nearly 500 mph. Most online fighter pilots want to kill you more than they want to 'follow orders'. It's why for the most part, even though I am shot down on a huge number of sorties, on something like 95% of them I have made it to my target, dropped all my ordnance, and my damage is already done. Shooting me down only counts for points for the most part, but I still get chased, which leaves the target open for follow up attacks.

So in the sim, I find that running away usually only works if you have a sustained top speed advantage in level flight, because that's probably what its going to boil down to. If I meet a 109F4 in a merge in an I-16 and try and dive away, as long as he keeps me in sight, I will never escape because he will likely turn around, get on my six and stick to my tail and stay with me as long as he needs to to kill me. Also, in the sim, I find spotting is almost as easy or possibly easier at ranges past 3 or 4 km than it is at closer ranges, where it seems that its easier to lose contacts, especially in a fast-moving dogfight, so staying close may paradoxically make me harder to follow.

So when I have a match-up like this, I will try and force close combat and attempt to sustain that combat for as long as possible. I'll do this for a few reasons:

1. I consider disengagement to be nearly as fatal as continued engagement - at least in a fight I can maneuver for advantage, in a tail chase they will catch me and I will be in a positional AND performance disadvantage.

2. Strategically, if I am in a fighter craft, my job is to provide cover for attackers. Even if I am unable to shoot down an enemy fighter, keeping them occupied means they are attacking me and not  friendly attackers.  If I can occupy  enemy fighters for even a few minutes, my attackers may get in, make their attack, and get out without being engaged.
3. The longer the combat goes on, the more likely it is that it will become a mid-to low-speed turn-fight at low altitude, or the enemy will prudently disengage. I-16s, Zeros, and fighters like them are knife fighters, so get them in knife range and don't let them go.

So what I would do is immediately after the pass, make a hard nose low turn into his turn and try and stay in his rear quarter as much as possible, and failing that, force a series of head-on passes that are just as risky for him as for me. The name of the game would be to stay around my best turning speed as much as possible to maximize my turning advantage and try and trap him in a lower speed turn fight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you're saying about in-game, but the question was Zero vs. >well flown< P-38, IRL. 

IRL, a head-on shootout with a P-38 (at least vs Japanese fighters) was always favorable to the 38. It had zero-convergence firepower along with a high volume of fire and long range hitting power. 

With counter-rotating props cancelling most torque and gyro effects, the 38 was an exceptional turner to either side.  Add to that the ability to use differential throttle through the turns and there were very few planes that could out turn a 38 - even ones half its size.  

 

I'm not sure what the top speed is for a Zero compared to a P-38, but if the 38 is gaining, about the only thing you can do is a sudden break that kills speed and use the 38's own momentum to get him to overshoot.  That's probably only going to work once though.  He'll just go up and over, and BnZ you until you're done.  

 

Axis pilots were rarely lucky enough to find P-38s flying solo or be in a position where a single decisive attack could be made.  If you were a solo Zero, that meant you lost your flight to enemy fire, or got separated from your flight. Either way, you were probably running like hell to try to get home anyhow.  I'm sure that Japanese military aviation doctrine was at least good enough to prohibit solo combat flights as it was not only inefficient for taking down enemy planes, it was in later stages of the war, suicide. Not all Japanese pilots were kamikaze, and even kamikaze had escorts when available. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

I hear what you're saying about in-game, but the question was Zero vs. >well flown< P-38, IRL. 

IRL, a head-on shootout with a P-38 (at least vs Japanese fighters) was always favorable to the 38. It had zero-convergence firepower along with a high volume of fire and long range hitting power. 

With counter-rotating props cancelling most torque and gyro effects, the 38 was an exceptional turner to either side.  Add to that the ability to use differential throttle through the turns and there were very few planes that could out turn a 38 - even ones half its size.  

 

I'm not sure what the top speed is for a Zero compared to a P-38, but if the 38 is gaining, about the only thing you can do is a sudden break that kills speed and use the 38's own momentum to get him to overshoot.  That's probably only going to work once though.  He'll just go up and over, and BnZ you until you're done.  

 

Axis pilots were rarely lucky enough to find P-38s flying solo or be in a position where a single decisive attack could be made.  If you were a solo Zero, that meant you lost your flight to enemy fire, or got separated from your flight. Either way, you were probably running like hell to try to get home anyhow.  I'm sure that Japanese military aviation doctrine was at least good enough to prohibit solo combat flights as it was not only inefficient for taking down enemy planes, it was in later stages of the war, suicide. Not all Japanese pilots were kamikaze, and even kamikaze had escorts when available. 

Yes, I answered the way I did to try and 'cover the bases'. It's not 100% clear from the OP that it was meant as IRL or for a hypothetical future pacific installment but I see your point.

I think you and I made different assumptions about the original post. All they state is that you have a head on pass with a P-38, after the pass what will you do to win? So there is no scenario really, we don't know if both planes are alone or with a flight, if this is taking place in a historic context in terms of numbers or training, etc.

We are presented, basically, with the opening phase of a duel with knowledge only of the individual combatants and their equipment - "a fleet-footed man with a spear attacks you and you only have a dagger and a gimp leg, how do you win?" Now, we may say "the man with the spear would always be part of a larger infantry formation and be in armor, while the man with the short sword is likely from an under-equipped peasant levy and has been separated from his comrades, his only hope is to flee, attacking would be suicide." And this would be perfectly good advice, but it assumes facts that we have not been provided with- even if they are reasonably guesses.

Going on only the information provided to us, we can say that the man with the short blade may be able to gain victory by getting within the reach of his enemy's weapon and forcing a close-quarters fight. Of course this involves the extreme risk of coming within reach of his weapon, but running from a faster man with a long weapon carries the same risk as attacking him head on, provided he is of a mind to chase you. 

 

The question was "how would you proceed to victory" if the P-38 was flown to its strengths, and of course any answer must be "with great difficulty and risk" or "not at all, I'm GTFO" (the more prudent and realistic option, of course, but technically speaking a draw, and not without its own risks).

The only way to win (i.e. shoot the P-38 down) would, IMO, be to take the head on shots you can get, since a P-38 flown to its strengths would not attempt to turn with you but would instead, as you say, BnZ you until you are done. You would never realistically get a rear-aspect shot or even a snap shot because he would maintain separation until he dove to attack... at which point you have to use your ridiculously small turn radius to get your guns on him if you want to hit him, as that will be the only chance you ever get. It may not be a good chance, it may be dumb, but it has a higher percentage of victory than not shooting at all.

Now, as to the likely outcome - in an engagement with a well flown P-38, and with me in a zero, I would expect to be shot down. If we take an extreme assumption that the P-38 is perfectly flown and also has perfect gunnery and nerves of steel, then there is literally no way to win, as the P-38 would kill you in a head on 100% of the time. In fact you would be already dead on the first pass since he would open up at 1000 yards, hold down the trigger and shred you with cannon and .50 cal, so the point is moot.

The duel only becomes interesting if the opponent is an imperfect human, and then you have options - you can frustrate them, you can scare them, you can draw them into a fight they don't want and then force them to panic and burn speed. And of course everything depends on you not losing your nerve and keeping a cool head as well.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is oddly relevant and even sentimental to me because....

 

Way way back in the pre-internet days before large multiplayer servers were around, I used to be part of a group of local enthusiasts that had ladder competitions doing one-on-one dogfighting via dial up modem connections arranged through a BBS.  Yes I know how primitive that sounds but the combat flight sim we used, although it had basic vector graphics, had FANTASTIC flight models with great fidelity and ran at an unheard of 40FPS on our systems.  And it had a really well-rounded set of aircraft types that you could match against each other.  Great times.

 

And not to brag much but I ruled the roost at least for a while in my trusty Nakajima N1K.  While it's not an A6M Zero, it's not too terribly far from being flown the same way.  Things were fun for me until one night when a very good player who was also normally a turnfighter in a Spitfire, decided he was tired of getting edged out and switched to a P-38, which we had all more or less passed over up to that point since it just couldn't turn with some of the other planes (Spits, Zeros, etc).  I thought he was going to be easy meat but he proceeded to boom and zoom, kept his distance and most importantly kept up his energy, and there was really little I could do apart from try for a quick evade and snapshot as he got close.  But it wasn't enough, in no time at all he was at the top of the ladder and no way I could unseat him after that.  He had done his homework quite well and it paid off.  I'd say that qualifies as a well-flown P-38, he was a great opponent. 

 

So I never did find a good solution, and that's the most effective way I could try to counter him.  To this day I firmly believe that a "well-flown P-38" is one of the most underappreciated and outright dangerous things you can run into in the skies.   Even more so now when we have throttle quadrant setups with individual throttle levers and I have seen people with those setups do surprising things with the P-38.  In that respect alone when down to a knife-fight, guys in single engine fighters just won't ever have the advantages of a pilot who really knows how to exploit the benefits of asymmetrical thrust.  


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

This question is oddly relevant and even sentimental to me because....

 

Way way back in the pre-internet days before large multiplayer servers were around, I used to be part of a group of local enthusiasts that had ladder competitions doing one-on-one dogfighting via dial up modem connections arranged through a BBS.  Yes I know how primitive that sounds but the combat flight sim we used, although it had basic vector graphics, had FANTASTIC flight models with great fidelity and ran at an unheard of 40FPS on our systems.  And it had a really well-rounded set of aircraft types that you could match against each other.  Great times.

 

And not to brag much but I ruled the roost at least for a while in my trusty Nakajima N1K.  While it's not an A6M Zero, it's not too terribly far from being flown the same way.  Things were fun for me until one night when a very good player who was also normally a turnfighter in a Spitfire, decided he was tired of getting edged out and switched to a P-38, which we had all more or less passed over up to that point since it just couldn't turn with some of the other planes (Spits, Zeros, etc).  I thought he was going to be easy meat but he proceeded to boom and zoom, kept his distance and most importantly kept up his energy, and there was really little I could do apart from try for a quick evade and snapshot as he got close.  But it wasn't enough, in no time at all he was at the top of the ladder and no way I could unseat him after that.  He had done his homework quite well and it paid off.  I'd say that qualifies as a well-flown P-38, he was a great opponent. 

 

So I never did find a good solution, and that's the most effective way I could try to counter him.  To this day I firmly believe that a "well-flown P-38" is one of the most underappreciated and outright dangerous things you can run into in the skies.   Even more so now when we have throttle quadrant setups with individual throttle levers and I have seen people with those setups do surprising things with the P-38.  In that respect alone when down to a knife-fight, guys in single engine fighters just won't ever have the advantages of a pilot who really knows how to exploit the benefits of asymmetrical thrust.  


 

 

Hence, one of the main reasons that after I get an decent set of rudder pedals, I'll be looking to upgrade my throttle to at least a dual-lever type.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

It's really not all that different from engaging a 109F4 or G in an I-16. You have a faster-climbing, higher speed enemy with an inferior turn rate who is able at all times to dictate the terms of the fight, should they wish to. In real life, if my orders permitted it, I would do as you say. There's little profit in engaging an enemy who is untouchable unless he is stupid. 
 

 

I agree re: I-16 vs 109, and the big exception that usually happens being a Pacific scenario that occured in our old sim is that Zero vs P-38 dogfight has a decent probability of occurring over an expanse of open water, which really exacerbates things for the poor lil' Zero that basically has nowhere to run and hide.  In that situation I'd probably sell my soul to be in that I-16 up against a 109 F-4, at least I can go try looking for a road or train tracks running through the forest to get down in, or hide behind a hill or blend in with the terrain however I can, even smear mud on my face.  If I could make my way to some decent cloud formations in the the Zero I'd try to exploit that (reminds me of how I found a P-47  lurking in the clouds this one time).   😁

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

With counter-rotating props cancelling most torque and gyro effects, the 38 was an exceptional turner to either side.  Add to that the ability to use differential throttle through the turns and there were very few planes that could out turn a 38 - even ones half its size.

 

Two things...

 

1) Do you have a source where did you read about guys using differential throttles whilst turning? I've genuinely never read about this. Differential throttles produces asymmetric thrust, causing yawing requiring rudder input to center the ball. 

 

2) From William Wolf's 5th Fighter Command in World War II Vol 3 page 1073 by Jay Robbins (4th ranked P-38 ace) "The distinct advantage the P-38 had over most [Japanese] fighters was in high-speed climbs and shallow dives, which enabled us to engage or disengage almost at will. Even with maneuvering flaps, we did not try to get into a turning engagement with most [Japanese] fighters."  According to Wallace Jordan (49th FG) on page 1074 "The evasive maneuvers favored by the enemy are the Spilt-S, Immelmanns, tight loops, steep diving turns, and chandelles. I have seen the double Immelmann used occasionally.[snip] Most of these turns will be made to the left. Usually, they are executed so quickly and the radii of the turns so short that you cannot follow. Bide your time, keep altitude, and make another pass. If you try to follow, the tight loop or reversal from any of the enemy's tight turns can easily put him on your tail."

 

But going all the way back to your OP. My response was opposite of your suggestion. At the pass I would use a nose low turn into the P-38 using my superior turn rate and smaller turn circle. 

Edited by busdriver
Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the question for a purpose, to see what other people thought. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but will wait on sharing them for now.


The P38J is faster, rolls faster, has a much higher ceiling, climbs as well or better, and has superior firepower. It will be piloted by someone who is at least competent.
 

The A6M3 will turn better and if piloted by a pre-1941 trained Japanese pilot, will be flown to an absolutely high standard of skill.


But assuming the P38J is flown well, how will the Zero win in this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

I agree re: I-16 vs 109, and the big exception that usually happens being a Pacific scenario that occured in our old sim is that Zero vs P-38 dogfight has a decent probability of occurring over an expanse of open water, which really exacerbates things for the poor lil' Zero that basically has nowhere to run and hide.  In that situation I'd probably sell my soul to be in that I-16 up against a 109 F-4, at least I can go try looking for a road or train tracks running through the forest to get down in, or hide behind a hill or blend in with the terrain however I can, even smear mud on my face.  If I could make my way to some decent cloud formations in the the Zero I'd try to exploit that (reminds me of how I found a P-47  lurking in the clouds this one time).   😁

 

Agreed, I would much rather fight over land either way. 

 

Exploiting clouds is a dastardly thing to do and I 100% recommend it! Even if it doesn’t work out in the end lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

If there's only one Lightning, you can keep him off by timing your evasive manuvers well and with some good technique, you might maintain an at least neutral position.

If you're stacked againt a team of Lightnings, you're on the poo.

 

You can avoid one Lighting all day long.

 

There was an incident back in the war where a pair of Lightnings came across a single Oscar.

They took turns making passes on him but that little Oscar evaded them effortlessly every single time.

 

The Lightnings eventually gave up and went home.

...but yeah you're right, in general you in the poo.

 

While flying as a lone Zeke in 46 I fought a squad/4 guys flying 4 Hellcats for 20 minutes or so - that was intense, and too much fun.

They finally got me but not before I took one out and damaged another.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to find myself having to go up against P-38s a lot in the Z vs W server.  In the end I had to change my convergence to 400m as I could rarely get a shot at them much nearer than that.  

 

In 1 vs 1 it often ended in a stalemate as the 38 would come roaring in and away, as I maneuvered quickly to get out of his line of fire.  The Lightning had a disadvantage over  Hellcats and other types with wing mounted guns, as the concentrated package made it devastating to a ‘sitter’ but less effective in the spray and pray department.  An F6F would just come down and switch on its firehose of .50 cals as it went past, and something was bound to take a bite out of you.  

 

Generally I’d have to let the P-38 call the shots, and do my best to position myself in such a way that I forced him to come in in a vertical dive.  Or if there was more than one, stay beneath the could deck to try and keep the fight on the horizontal plane.  

 

Most lightnings seemed to break off once they got a fuel leak.  But it took a lot of snap shots at fleeting targets to get that to happen.  The ideal was to sucker one into a sustained turn.  The most effective way to do that was to type “Run Forrest, Run!” into the chat bar.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Therefore, it's completely ruled out that using asymmetrical throttle and controlled bank in a sustained turn can be done to great effect.  🙄

 

Correct...using asymmetric thrust in a thrust limited airplane that is slowing down to try and sustain a turn in one direction is not gonna happen. Thinking you can use asymmetric thrust as some sort of Jedi mind trick to out turn a bandit shows an incomplete grasp of the concept. You may recall the discussion of Vmca  your instructors had with you about the hazards of losing an engine below a certain airspeed (the possibility of the airplane rolling over on its back into the dead engine). The asymmetric thrust technique described by Jeffery Ethell results in a reversal, and is not for entering or sustaining a turn. The resulting reversal is a demonstration of the adverse effects of asymmetric thrust at low airspeed. It is the quintessential Vmca demonstration.

 

Prove it to yourself. Hop into a P-38 in QMB start at 3000 meters and do these tests. On your first set, if you select idling the right engine you'll make turns to the right.

 

Set Combat power, accelerate to whatever airspeed that gives you. I'm assuming you have a single throttle, if you have a dual throttle bit of kit, you don't have to select 1 or 2.

1) flying straight and level, select an engine (press number 1 or 2 your choice) and simply pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

2) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, and pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

3) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, and pull your throttle to idle and continue the turn as you slow down. What happens?

4) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, but continue the turn as you slow down. Around 150 mph pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

 

Let's assume you did all of those. Repeat the series, again turn right, but this time select the left engine to pull to idle. 

Edited by busdriver
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Correct...using asymmetric thrust in a thrust limited airplane that is slowing down to try and sustain a turn in one direction is not gonna happen. Thinking you can use asymmetric thrust as some sort of Jedi mind trick to out turn a bandit shows an incomplete grasp of the concept. You may recall the discussion of Vmca  your instructors had with you about the hazards of losing an engine below a certain airspeed (the possibility of the airplane rolling over on its back into the dead engine). The asymmetric thrust technique described by Jeffery Ethell results in a reversal, and is not for entering or sustaining a turn. The resulting reversal is a demonstration of the adverse effects of asymmetric thrust at low airspeed. It is the quintessential Vmca demonstration.

 

Prove it to yourself. Hop into a P-38 in QMB start at 3000 meters and do these tests. On your first set, if you select idling the right engine you'll make turns to the right.

 

Set Combat power, accelerate to whatever airspeed that gives you. I'm assuming you have a single throttle, if you have a dual throttle bit of kit, you don't have to select 1 or 2.

1) flying straight and level, select an engine (press number 1 or 2 your choice) and simply pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

2) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, and pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

3) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, and pull your throttle to idle and continue the turn as you slow down. What happens?

4) flying straight and level with both engines at Combat power roll into a steep bank right, select the right engine, but continue the turn as you slow down. Around 150 mph pull your throttle to idle. What happens?

 

Let's assume you did all of those. Repeat the series, again turn right, but this time select the left engine to pull to idle. 

 

Or....how about if I do like really would have been done and with both throttles in the palm of my hand, used my dexterity to put the one throttle slightly ahead or behind the other, respective of the turn direction?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Or....how about if I do like really would have been done and with both throttles in the palm of my hand, used my dexterity to put the one throttle slightly ahead or behind the other, respective of the turn direction?  

 

I'll repeat my previous remark, "Thinking you can use asymmetric thrust as some sort of Jedi mind trick to out turn a bandit shows an incomplete grasp of the concept." But let's go with your aviation credentials and leave it at that.

 

Cheers ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

I'll repeat my previous remark, "Thinking you can use asymmetric thrust as some sort of Jedi mind trick to out turn a bandit shows an incomplete grasp of the concept." But let's go with your aviation credentials and leave it at that.

 

Cheers ;)

 

That's ok. Methinks you don't grasp the concept of the Jedi mind trick.  ;)

Besides, I never claimed to be a pilot. 

I do understand the difference between "deadening" and engine completely by fully cutting the throttle and using the throttle to exploit the torque in my favor though.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sad twist of fate that Jeff Etell would later be killed in a P-38 crash, due to fuel-starvation and Vmca.

 

3 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

I do understand the difference between "deadening" and engine completely by fully cutting the throttle and using the throttle to exploit the torque in my favor though.  

 

You can't use torque in your favor here, since it only acts in roll and doesn't do any good in turns.

Splitting the throttle might do a little good in boosting the roll-rate, but given the time it takes to set the power appropiately and the time it takes for the engines to respond, there's little to it.

You'll get a faster response by just giving it a boot-full of proverse rudder.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Besides, I never claimed to be a pilot. 

 

I've never made that assumption. I'm just presenting facts and experiments curious readers can try, and to add some knowledge to their SA. 

 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

You can't use torque in your favor here, since it only acts in roll and doesn't do any good in turns.

Splitting the throttle might do a little good in boosting the roll-rate, but given the time it takes to set the power appropiately and the time it takes for the engines to respond, there's little to it.

You'll get a faster response by just giving it a boot-full of proverse rudder.

 

What he said...

Edited by busdriver
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/25/2020 at 1:22 AM, Venturi said:

I asked the question for a purpose, to see what other people thought. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but will wait on sharing them for now.


The P38J is faster, rolls faster, has a much higher ceiling, climbs as well or better, and has superior firepower. It will be piloted by someone who is at least competent.
 

The A6M3 will turn better and if piloted by a pre-1941 trained Japanese pilot, will be flown to an absolutely high standard of skill.


But assuming the P38J is flown well, how will the Zero win in this scenario?

 

Pacific Lightings fighting with A6M3 didn't have aileron boosters and dive flaps - only late 1944 last J variants and L variants had - it means very easy evading his dive attacks, easy evasion with roll and easy win in rolling scissors - it would be like evading Me-262 with Spitfire IX.

In late 1944 they were some last Zeros in some Japanese units but they were totally hopelesly outdated at this period of the war replaced by other, far more modern fighters.

 

First i would outturn Lighting but without losing the whole energy: if he follow Zero win; if he separete in vertical i keep my energy and my nose on him with lag pursuit.

 

Than if he would refuse to turn with me and deny me a shoot using speed and vertical climb i would descent in a tight spiral denying him a shoot: he can follow me to low alt where the drag of his big airframe equals our speed and acceleration and lose; or he can stay high and stop being an immediate danger - diving Lighting without boosters and speed brakes is very easy to evade (and it is a bigger danger to his own pilot than some nimble target prepared to evade).

 

It's only 1v1 scenario, IRL there were many vs many and far more chaotic combat so the outcome would be different, speed and armament prevailed.

Edited by Bies
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...