Zero vs. Bf 109: Who wins?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So lets say that somehow or another the Pacific war is avoided and the United States declares war on the Germans in '42 or '43, except they refuse lend lease to the Soviets. Could the Japanese keep there economy afloat by supplying the Soviets, and how would Soviet Zeros handle against the Luftwaffe?
 

Redbeard

Banned
So lets say that somehow or another the Pacific war is avoided and the United States declares war on the Germans in '42 or '43, except they refuse lend lease to the Soviets. Could the Japanese keep there economy afloat by supplying the Soviets, and how would Soviet Zeros handle against the Luftwaffe?

Apart from the unlikelyness of Japan in any way supporting the the SU the Zero probably wouldn't be very well suited over the east front.

The Zero's great advantage was its very light construction (no armour or self sealing tanks) giving it formidable manoeuvrability and range. The first is handy if you try to dogfight and the second a must over the Pacific. But it is remarkable that even mediocre allied fighters like the Wildcat actually did quite well vs. the Zero once they stopped dogfighting it and instead relied on superior diving speed, firepower and protection.

The range is of no great importance on the east front but in the first encounters the Luftwaffe will probably be uncomfortably surprised when trying to dogfight it. The Luftwaffe rarely took long to adopt fitting tactics however and planes like the Bf109 or Fw190 would be very suitable for zoom and boom tactics.

The Zero will probably match anything the Soviets had in their inventory by 1941, but a year or two later I would anytime prefer the OTL Soviet types.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
The Bf 109 and Spitfire had very similar performance characteristics so it is possible to estimate the likely outcome of a conflict between the Mitsubishi A6M Zeke (Zero) and the Bf 109. The Zero would out climb and out turn the 109 and if the 109 did not avoid a turning fight he would lose. If however he kept his distance and made diving attacks and climbed away avoiding horizontal turns then he could prevail. If however the Zero got on his tail his only option would be straight down either in flames or a power dive.
This was why even average Japanese pilots could put up an exceptional performance against Allied planes until captured aircraft enabled tactics to be developed to deal with them until newer models were available to outperform them. These tactics that the US pilots used to combat the Japanese machines, they all had exceptional power to weight ratios, were the same as Luftwaffe FW190 pilots used to defeat the more maneuverable Spitfire. The downfall of the Japanese machine was that it achieved its spectacular power to weight ratio at the expense of build strength, there were no self sealing fuel tanks, pilot armour and high dive speeds would cause structural failure.
 
In regards to Redbeard: From what I read after Khalkin Gol and the Japanese-Soviet Pact in '41, they were fairly amicable. Didnt Stalin even tell the Japanese ambassador something along the lines of "we recognize our Asiatic brothers sphere in East Asia"?

Thanks Dean for the analysis.
 
What a strange question. The Bf109E and A6M2-3 would probably be roughly equivalent. The 109 was slightly faster, had a much higher diving speed, had adequate armor protection for pilot and fuel tanks, and was well armed with both cannon and MG. The Zero was more manueverable, much longer ranged, had a higher climb rate, and was about as well armed as the 109. It also burned easily, due to its complete lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. However, by 1942-43, the Japanese fighter would be completely outclassed. The Bf 109 had tremendous growth potential; in 1945 the G and K models were still among the best fighters in the ETO, while late model Zeros were completely outclassed by all allied fighters and other later Japanese designs as well. Also, why would the Soviets want Zeros, when by 1942 they were well on the way to perfecting the Yak 3,7,9 series and the La5, both much better opponents for the 109 than the Zero would have been?

Now, a really interesting question would be how the Luftwaffe might have faired if they had license-built, long range Zero escort fighters available for the Battle of Britain.
 
The Japanese army had the Nakajima Ki-84 Frank and the Kawasaki Ki-61 Tony by 1943 and both were a match for their contemporaries. The IJN never did get a replacement for the A6M as Mitsubishi could not get the A7M produced before their surrender. It probably would have been more likely that an army fighter such as the Nakajima Ki-41 Oscar would have been used to begin with if Russia did use a Japanese machine. After all they used many Hurricanes and Aircobras that were inferior to their own machines.
Had Mitsubishi managed to get the A7M into full production it would have been a highly effective fighter. Together with their version of the Me 163 and Nagajima's version of the Me 262 the allies would have had problems. So strategic bombing seemed to work when it came to keeping the Japanese air forces flying inferior machines.
 
This is sorta like askin WI the LUFTWAFFE were able to use Spitfires, as Adolf Galland so wanted to after the Battle of Britain.
 
The Japanese army had the Nakajima Ki-84 Frank and the Kawasaki Ki-61 Tony by 1943 and both were a match for their contemporaries. The IJN never did get a replacement for the A6M as Mitsubishi could not get the A7M produced before their surrender. It probably would have been more likely that an army fighter such as the Nakajima Ki-41 Oscar would have been used to begin with if Russia did use a Japanese machine. After all they used many Hurricanes and Aircobras that were inferior to their own machines.
Had Mitsubishi managed to get the A7M into full production it would have been a highly effective fighter. Together with their version of the Me 163 and Nagajima's version of the Me 262 the allies would have had problems. So strategic bombing seemed to work when it came to keeping the Japanese air forces flying inferior machines.
I'm sooooooo scared that the Zero would fail against the 109.So the 109 will be the world's top most bloody violent aircraft in earth.
 
I have a feeling that Britain would accept the zeros and outclass the 109 but they will find it impossible to get rid of the 109 this time because the Zero has no armour and is vulnerable to attacks and even Isis will find it easy to rid the Zero for good.

So Japan will look for good ways to use the Zero against Britain.I don't think I will get good sleep because the 109 is like two hells and Zero is like five hells but they may lose because it has no good armour and though it has cannons,the 109 can simply set it on fire and let it go or follow it to the ground bud!
 

Deleted member 1487

The Bf 109 and Spitfire had very similar performance characteristics so it is possible to estimate the likely outcome of a conflict between the Mitsubishi A6M Zeke (Zero) and the Bf 109. The Zero would out climb and out turn the 109 and if the 109 did not avoid a turning fight he would lose. If however he kept his distance and made diving attacks and climbed away avoiding horizontal turns then he could prevail. If however the Zero got on his tail his only option would be straight down either in flames or a power dive.
This was why even average Japanese pilots could put up an exceptional performance against Allied planes until captured aircraft enabled tactics to be developed to deal with them until newer models were available to outperform them. These tactics that the US pilots used to combat the Japanese machines, they all had exceptional power to weight ratios, were the same as Luftwaffe FW190 pilots used to defeat the more maneuverable Spitfire. The downfall of the Japanese machine was that it achieved its spectacular power to weight ratio at the expense of build strength, there were no self sealing fuel tanks, pilot armour and high dive speeds would cause structural failure.
There is the minor factor of the Me109 being faster than the Zero, so they could just gun it and pull away. In 1942 or 1943 the Me109 was in either the F or G series depending on the exact date, which had top speeds dozens of miles faster and better altitude performance. It would be like a P-51 vs. a Fw190, with the Me109 as the P-51 here (though with shorter range).

Now, a really interesting question would be how the Luftwaffe might have faired if they had license-built, long range Zero escort fighters available for the Battle of Britain.
They'd have been slaughtered. The Zero at the time had a 960hp engine and a top speed of 330mph, while the Spit on WEP was much much faster. Plus it's MGs would have chewed up the light frame. Forget even trying to dog fight, the Brits would boom and zoom. Even the Hurricane II would be faster.
 
There is the minor factor of the Me109 being faster than the Zero, so they could just gun it and pull away. In 1942 or 1943 the Me109 was in either the F or G series depending on the exact date, which had top speeds dozens of miles faster and better altitude performance. It would be like a P-51 vs. a Fw190, with the Me109 as the P-51 here (though with shorter range).
Could look at the combat between French Hawk 75s vs the 109 in 1940

Hawks were the most successful of the French fighters, and it was almost a Zero, with fewer guns but strong structure an excellent Roll rate at all speeds

From Green & Swanborough's US Army Air Force Fighters, Part 1, part of Arco's WW2 Aircraft Fact Files, published in the mid-seventies:

"The Curtiss fighter was by no means an unknown quantity to the RAF, for as early as November 1939 a Hawk 75A-1 had been flown (in France) by Sqn Leader J F X McKenna on behalf of the A and AEE. His report had said that the Hawk was "exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, the aileron control being particularly powerful" and that it was "more manoeuvrable at high speed than the Hurricane or Spitfire". This report naturally aroused considerable interest in official circles in Britain, and as a result arrangements were made for a Hawk 75 to be borrowed from l'Armee de l'Air for further evaluation in Britain. The 88th Hawk 75A-2 was used, in consequence, at the RAE from 29 December 1939 to 13 January 1940 for a 12-hr flight programme covering handling in general, and specifically by comparison with the Spitfire, Hurricane and Gloster F.5/34; mock combats were staged between the Hawk and a production Spitfire I (K9944), fitted with the early two-pitch propeller (3-bladed De Havilland two-speed prop-HB).

"The Hawk 75A-2 was flown with aft tank empty at a loaded weight of 6,025 lb (2 733 kg) and the three RAF pilots participating in the evaluation were unanimous in their praise for the US fighter's exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonised controls. In a diving attack at 400mph (644 km/h) the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire, thanks to its lighter ailerons, and in a dogfight at 250 mph (402 km/h) the Hawk was again the superior machine because of its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-around view was better; but the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its very much higher maximum speed. In a dive at 400 mph (644km/h), the Spitfire pilot, exerting all his strength, could apply no more than one-fifth aileron because of high stick forces whereas the Curtiss pilot could apply three-quarter aileron.

"When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, both aircraft travelling at 350-400 mph (560-645 km/h), the Curtiss fighter's pilot could avoid his opponent by applying its ailerons quickly, banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk round in this manoeuvre and consequently overshot the target. In the reverse situation, however, the Hawk could easily follow the Spitfire until the latter's superior speed allowed it to pull away. The superior manoeuvrability of the Hawk was ascribed mainly to the over-sensitiveness of the Spitfire's elevator, which resulted in some difficulty in accurately controlling the 'g' in a tight turn; over-correction held the risk of an inadvertent stall being induced.

"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers (which was, of course, the primary role for which the British aircraft had been designed).
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top