I'm terrified of zeros.

[Depaskala]

These machines make short work of my planes. Apparently they outperform my wildcats to the point where I need to throw twice as many planes at a japanese formation if I wish to stand a chance.

But, hey, what.

Wiki[en.wikipedia.org] tells me : "However, the F4F's ruggedness, coupled with tactics such as the Thach Weave and High-side guns pass maneuvers using altitude advantage, resulted in a claimed air combat kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war."

Now I am confused.

[Jotte]

Operative word though: claimed

[byepopejoy]

Your Wildcats are obviously not using the Thach Weave, which required two pilots to cooperate and chase Zeroes of each-other's tail. In general, I try to split my Wildcats into two-aircraft elements, then I have the elements chase Zeroes off each others' tail.

[Cpl. Hicks]

For high side gun passes, you need to have the altitude advantage and the element of surprise (the enemy pilot does not see you coming). Which above Guadalcanal usually did not happen. The Japanese flew from Rabaul, escorting the bombers, which gave them plenty of time to climb. While the US flew from Herderson field and were usually hastly scrambled to intercept said bombers, which did not give them a lot of time to climb. Not to mention that the Zero had a better climb rate then the Wildcat to begin with.

And the Thach Weave maneuver only worked if the enemy fully commited to a turn fight against the baiting target.

The A6M2 and A6M3 were still very much superior fighters to the F4F-4 in 1942 in most respects. The success of the CAF above Guadalcanal were never a result of the F4Fs performance. Among the major factors that contributed was the fact that Japan was at this point already running out of experienced pilots as well as support from US ground based AAA.

The effect of the ruggedness of the F4F is often overstated. While the Wildcats durability could protect the pilot from the 7.7mm nose mounted machine guns, if the Zero got a good shot in with the 20mm canons, you are done. No amount of armor will keep your plane in the air after that.

To quote the US navy IIS No.85 comparison of the F4F-4 against a captured A6M2:

-"Superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet."

-"It is superior in service ceiling and range."

-"Close to sea level, equal in level speed."

-"Equal in dive."

-"No comparison in the turn rate between the planes."

Based on the same tests, the US navy recommends pilots to:

-"Never engage in a dogfight with the Zero."

-"Always stay above 300mph in a fight against the Zero."

-"Never follow a Zero into a climb."

-"Advantage of the superiority of the F4F-4 in negative G pushovers and rolls at high speeds should be taken."

-"Aircraft expected to encounter the Zero are recommended to ditch all non-essential equipment."

[76561198007484948]

Wildcats are rugged compared to Zeros, Oscars & all first generation IJN & IJAAF aircraft, which have no armoured fueltanks, cockpit reinforcement, even redundant systems. Wildcats/F4F's on the other hand have bullet-proof glass, primitive self-sealing fuel tanks, and also a big half-inch slab of armour plate just behind the pilot's seat.
Read Subaro Sakai's excellent 'Samurai', where he laments about the poor durability of the Zero when compared to the American types, he personaly saw many American aircraft take damage & punishment which would have turned a Zero into an exploding fireball...
BTW the US Marine pilot, Joe Foss, when writing his air-combat notes whilst on assignment with the Cactus airforce (at Lunga/Guadalcanal) said quite simply :
'If you are fighting a Zero 1 to 1, then you are outnumbered."

BTW the Wildcat could actually outdive the Zero, especially when starting from a medium or high altitude - this was often the best strategy of USN & USM pilots early on - dive away out of the dogfight. The Zero was actually quite light when compared to the F4F and had larger wingspace square footage, which gave it a lower wingloading. This made it an excellent climber far more manoueverable, especially at lower speeds, but a slower diver.

[Cpl. Hicks]

Originally posted by sunseekers_:

BTW the Wildcat could actually outdive the Zero, especially when starting from a medium or high altitude - this was often the best strategy of USN & USM pilots early on - dive away out of the dogfight. The Zero was actually quite light when compared to the F4F and had larger wingspace square footage, which gave it a lower wingloading. This made it an excellent climber far more manoueverable, especially at lower speeds, but a slower diver.

According to the tests conducted by the US navy, the F4F-4 Wildcat could not in fact outdive a Zero.

But the Zero did start to compress at high speeds. Thus in a dive, the Zero would start to compress quite quickly, while the Wildcat would gain superiority in roll rate.

[jfoytek]

Uhm??? WTF this game needs to buff the Zero dramatically as it gets wiped bye the wildcat nearly every single time heck my Avengers and Dauntless's shoot the zero's down with no issue....

Which is not even remotely accurate the zero should be ruling the sky's but its not....

[rasmith1030]

No, not really true. The Dauntless could easily hold its own against the zero. Proven during the battle of Midway.

[rasmith1030]

Actually, I wouldn't worry about anything that happens in this GAME. Because it is just that, a GAME, not a simulation. It is a lot like playing Space Invaders, where, after you whipe a Fleet, a new Fleet magically spawns out of thin air.

[Bramborough]

In context of the game, a lot of the historical discussion above about Zero-vs-Wildcat pros/cons seems largely irrelevant to me, in a game where air-to-air combat occurs two-dimensionally, essentially with just horizontal turns, and even basic ACM (Immelmans, split-S, or anything else involving a vertical element) just aren't possible. Increasing altitude before engaging doesn't do much either, as the planes will simply descend to engage the targeted enemy in a horizontal turnfight anyway. Plus climbing/descending don't affect speed.

So fundamentally it's not a matter of Zeros and/or Wildcats not being modeled correctly (although I'm certainly not claiming that they are, by any stretch). The much bigger factor is simply that WotS air-to-air combat is not realistic in the first place - and doesn't try to be. Whatever inaccuracies exist in individual aircraft stats/performance pale by comparison.

[Depaskala]

I don't think that plane movements are very important by themselves, in this game. It's a slow paced naval warfare strategy game, not a flight simulator. Even if I'd enjoy watching more acrobatics, for me these dogfights are essentially cosmetic. What matters more is the outcome. I was enjoying this apparent in-game superiority of the zeroes because I assumed it to mirror reality. That is, simply, having to send it more US planes at Japanese planes in order to defeat them. I'd just enjoy the historical efficiency ratio to be respected, be it represented in-game by 2D ballets, full 3D aerial combat or simple auto-resolves, I don't truly care how.

So, it's just this wiki article that made me doubt that it was the case. In fact, I'm just asking confirmation or refutation that the comparative lethality of these historical planes are represented well.

[boris.glevrk]

I'm quite baffled to see people having problems with fighters... Personally my bombers never meet them. They just destroy the enemy ships without (or, in the rare case where fighters are present, "before") being harassed by the fighters.

[Lakel]

Just want to make the point here, "rugged" or "tanky" for a plane is still a far cry from the same definitions used in Tanks. Plane might have another wing spar, might have a slightly thicker spar, seal sealing tanks, pilot armor, littl eof which outright blocks damage tot he airframe, just allows it to take another hit or two most likely, especially so if it gets hit byt he zero's 20mm.

Which generally is the difference from being shot down, and surviving to limp home. far from eating the hit and staying in the fight.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Depaskala:

I don't think that plane movements are very important by themselves, in this game. It's a slow paced naval warfare strategy game, not a flight simulator. Even if I'd enjoy watching more acrobatics, for me these dogfights are essentially cosmetic. What matters more is the outcome. I was enjoying this apparent in-game superiority of the zeroes because I assumed it to mirror reality. That is, simply, having to send it more US planes at Japanese planes in order to defeat them. I'd just enjoy the historical efficiency ratio to be respected, be it represented in-game by 2D ballets, full 3D aerial combat or simple auto-resolves, I don't truly care how.

So, it's just this wiki article that made me doubt that it was the case. In fact, I'm just asking confirmation or refutation that the comparative lethality of these historical planes are represented well.

I still don't see how your coming to the conclusion that the Zero is better, In real life sure, but in this game the only real difference between the zero and wildcat is the wildcat has more armor otherwise they fly exactly the same (where in lay's the problem) The strengths of the zero are not in the game because pretty much all planes in the game fly the exact same way... so the wildcat having more armor is a huge advantage.... I am yet to see a group of 4 zero's beat a group of 4 wildcat's without player intervention....

[Depaskala]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

I still don't see how your coming to the conclusion that the Zero is better, In real life sure, but in this game the only real difference between the zero and wildcat is the wildcat has more armor otherwise they fly exactly the same (where in lay's the problem) The strengths of the zero are not in the game because pretty much all planes in the game fly the exact same way... so the wildcat having more armor is a huge advantage.... I am yet to see a group of 4 zero's beat a group of 4 wildcat's without player intervention....

In my experience (campaign, US side, no mods), 4 zeros easily beat 4 wildcats or 4 avengers. Now I only send groups of 8 to intercept them.

It was so regular that I doubt it was just a caprice of the randomizers. But who knows, with that sort of stuff.

[zzirSnipzz]

Originally posted by Cpl. Hicks:

For high side gun passes, you need to have the altitude advantage and the element of surprise (the enemy pilot does not see you coming). Which above Guadalcanal usually did not happen. The Japanese flew from Rabaul, escorting the bombers, which gave them plenty of time to climb. While the US flew from Herderson field and were usually hastly scrambled to intercept said bombers, which did not give them a lot of time to climb. Not to mention that the Zero had a better climb rate then the Wildcat to begin with.

And the Thach Weave maneuver only worked if the enemy fully commited to a turn fight against the baiting target.

The A6M2 and A6M3 were still very much superior fighters to the F4F-4 in 1942 in most respects. The success of the CAF above Guadalcanal were never a result of the F4Fs performance. Among the major factors that contributed was the fact that Japan was at this point already running out of experienced pilots as well as support from US ground based AAA.

The effect of the ruggedness of the F4F is often overstated. While the Wildcats durability could protect the pilot from the 7.7mm nose mounted machine guns, if the Zero got a good shot in with the 20mm canons, you are done. No amount of armor will keep your plane in the air after that.

To quote the US navy IIS No.85 comparison of the F4F-4 against a captured A6M2:

-"Superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000 feet."

-"It is superior in service ceiling and range."

-"Close to sea level, equal in level speed."

-"Equal in dive."

-"No comparison in the turn rate between the planes."

Based on the same tests, the US navy recommends pilots to:

-"Never engage in a dogfight with the Zero."

-"Always stay above 300mph in a fight against the Zero."

-"Never follow a Zero into a climb."

-"Advantage of the superiority of the F4F-4 in negative G pushovers and rolls at high speeds should be taken."

-"Aircraft expected to encounter the Zero are recommended to ditch all non-essential equipment."

Strange the USN didnt find the corsair suitable for carrier operations til the british showed them how to operate them correctly