Quote:
Originally Posted by encia
Both Japanese Zero and WildCats has similar engine class, but the Zero is not loaded with WildCat's relatively heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
"Wildcat was outperformed by the faster and more nimble 331 mph (533 km/h) Mitsubishi A6M Zero".
"It was not until 1943 that more advanced naval fighters capable of taking on the Zero on more even terms, the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair"
F6F Hellcat still carries relatively heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Later Zeros also includes some armor and uprated engines, but they are late for WWII.
|
Well, you technically never answered the question nor do I understand the general point of your statements. The ability of the Hellcat to later outperform the Zero has nothing to do with its similarity or dissimilarity to the Zero.
While the Zero was lightweight and more aerodynamic design which allowed it to out turn and outmaneuver the F4F, Wildcat, did have superior armor and was able to take more damage. The Zero was also an primary attack, long range fighter while the Wildcat had a much shorter range. "The F6F Hellcat was designed to enhance the favorable aspects of the F4F while having a much higher top speed and greater range, allowing it to outperform the Zero." So I think its safe to assume while improvement were made they didn't scrape the basic design and philosophy behind their own planes in order to achieve dominance.
While tactics also might have been changed and adapted I don't think they suddenly became Japanese in their mentality towards certainly strategies or design characteristics they favored either. The idea that as we "improve" we become more similar isn't true. We might adjust to compensate for a weakness any enemy is exploiting but generally you continue to improve on the things you do well more so than the things you aren't good at.