We need to remember that Zero's range came also from having a 50% more fuel than the usual European fighters we mostly talk about (Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Yaks and LaGGs), low-powered engine, and drop tank facility from day one. It was also well streamlined aircraft, and not too big.
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We need to remember that Zero's range came also from having a 50% more fuel than the usual European fighters we mostly talk about (Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, Yaks and LaGGs), low-powered engine, and drop tank facility from day one. It was also well streamlined aircraft, and not too big.
Admiral Beez
Major
So did the Japanese.
As soon as they had an engine powerful enough, Japan included armour and self sealing fuel tanks. The Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K and Kawasaki Ki-100, arguably the three best Japanese fighters were thusly protected.
It's a funny thing that we give the Zero (and Oscar) such respect. The Zero was fatally flawed and unbalanced, and only existed because Japan was seemingly unable to make more powerful engines. It's akin to having a fire truck that can get to the burning house in record time, but had only a thin hose and room for two firemen. Japan should have licensed the Fw 190's BMW 801, or just put more attention to engine design. Now, if Japan enters the war with a force of powerful, agile and protected Ki-84, that earns respect.
Not everything; the Zero had a floatation bag aft of the pilot's seat that would inflate when the aircraft ditched to enable the pilot to get out. No, it didn't have self sealing tanks, but then by the time the Zero first flew in April 1939, not many front line fighters did, in actual fact. For what Japan wanted and needed, the Zero was far better suited than any European or US fighter at the time.
European approach does not work for Japanese in 1937-42.
Fatally flawed? Is it Zero's design fault that japanese didn't came out with a heir to the Zero?
Japan was well able to make more powerful engines already in 1941. How much of them is debatable, though.
Ki-61 featured self-sealing tanks, it's internal tank even bigger than those on the Zero, and it sported 2 drop tanks. All on less than 1200 HP.
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
I'm not so sure that was a deliberate "design philosophy". We sometimes think that the Japanese culture put little value on the lives of individuals, which history in some ways shows true compared to "western" culture. But I'm not convinced that was the case with the A6M design. They lacked an aircraft engine with the power to haul around a heavy fighter with reasonable performance. So the balance is what-performance or protection? What good is armor and self-sealing tanks if you're terribly underpowered and under-performing? By keeping the weight to a minimum the natural side effect was low wing loading and excellent low-speed handling. And by keeping the fixed weight down, they both got good fuel economy-and of course had space to pack a lot of fuel tanks on board. Once they had developed a better, more powerful engine, the Japanese incorporated those features-and had the performance to equal the best Allied or German fighters in many areas. They just lacked the industrial might and resources (including pilots) to build them in sufficient quantity and get them in the field.
Another thought on the design philosophy of the Zero. The empire they were building (or desired) in the Pacific and SEA was vast and took endurance to cover. This wasn't Europe where you can cover multiple countries in an hour flying time. I can't help but think that was a factor in the design as well. The Spitfire or even the BF-109 would have been of little value if it didn't have the range to cover a significant portion of their empire-or even fly to the next island with an airbase.
Last edited:
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.
Admiral Beez
Major
It's not 1941 that the Zero's fatal flaws came to light. The A6M was the IJN's sole fighter until the end of the war, so it must be compared to allied naval fighters throughout the Zero's service period. Same as the Bf 109 must be compared against allied fighters right up to 1945.
And yes, fatally flawed. No one else was fielding unarmoured, unprotected carrier fighters into 1942-45. I'd still give the Zero positive odds against the Seafire and fair odds against the Wildcat, but Hellcat and Corsair show the fatal flaws designed into the Zero.
The Combined Fleet was beaten to a draw at Coral Sea and wiped out at Midway. The Zero for all its wonderment did not save the day. It was just another fighter.
Last edited:
The sacrifice of endurance (range is a poor measure) for performance and firepower was absolutely a compromise explicitly and deliberately made in the case of the Spitfire.
Admiral Beez
Major
Was the Spitfire really that short ranged? Once the UK point defence role was passed, the later Spitfires gained range without surrendering protection or firepower through installing increasingly powerful engines.
fubar57
General
1943
Kevin J
Banned
IIRC, the Miles M20 had a range of about 900 miles without drop tanks and would have had double that with 2 X 90 IG. So a worthy competitor for the Zero in the Pacific and East Indies.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
Every design is a compromise; some just work out better than others. The IJN decided that it needed a long-range, high-performance carrier-based fighter and placed more import on maneuverability and range than did the USN with their designs, which placed more on robustness. Since the only other country with its own serious fighters launching off its carriers in 1941 was the USN (the Sea Hurricane was a kludge, not an ab initio design), there isn't a whole lot of aircraft for comparison.
Kevin J
Banned
Miles M20. See previous post.
Yes it was. It could be made to have greater endurance, as various PR types did, but as a fighter interceptor it was short ranged because it was designed for a role that did not require great endurance. The eight gun specification only required a tankage of 66 gallons, so the fact that the Spitfire ended up with 85 gallons, only 9 gallons short of the requirement for four guns was a bonus.
Short list of Zero's faults:
- IJN has no radars worth speaking about in 1942
- USA is reading a lot of Japanese mail
- USN was expected to behave like Japanese admirals want, not like US admirals want
- pittyful state of fleet AA guns (both in quality and quantity)
- pittyful state of IJN damage control
- no 'bodyguard' ships for the carriers
- wrong doctrine of IJN, like attacking ground targets with carrier-borne aircraft instead of ship guns etc
- waste of design resouces and time and still not coming out with replacement to the Zero itself
- no emphasis on new pilots' training, and protection once airborne
- dividing the forces of IJN in May/June 1942
- failure to deploy submarine screen around Midway in timely manner, and not bothering to report to the fleet when that happened
- Shokaku left in japanese waters during the Battle of Midway
What a flawed fighter.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
We'll just have to agree to disagree which of course is ok. I don't think you can compare a 1941 design to a 43 or 44 one. Especially considering the pace of development durring the war. I don't for example consider the f4f fatally flawed because it doesn't look that impressive next to a Me262.
That the IJN failed to field a follow on design to replace the A6m had zero to do( so to speak
) with any deficiency in it's design. That it was still a dangerous oponent in the hands of a competent pilot far past it's reasonable best by date unlike so many othe designs speeks not of a fatal flaw or series of such but the opposite. Imho.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Tell me something...did the early BF-109's have armour protection? Self-sealing tanks?
I know the F2A-1 didn't, because that was part of the creation of the "-2" and "-3" varients.
Those planes would be design contemporary's of the A6M, since they all benefit from the knowledge/technology available in the mid-late 1930's (actually, with the 109, you could go back to the early 30's).
So if you're questioning about the lack of such things, think about when the plane was designed. What was the knowledge of that time?
I think, sometimes, we all suffer from a bit too much "hindsight-is-20/20".
Elvis
I know the F2A-1 didn't, because that was part of the creation of the "-2" and "-3" varients.
Those planes would be design contemporary's of the A6M, since they all benefit from the knowledge/technology available in the mid-late 1930's (actually, with the 109, you could go back to the early 30's).
So if you're questioning about the lack of such things, think about when the plane was designed. What was the knowledge of that time?
I think, sometimes, we all suffer from a bit too much "hindsight-is-20/20".
Elvis
Last edited:
Not everything; the Zero had a floatation bag aft of the pilot's seat that would inflate when the aircraft ditched to enable the pilot to get out. No, it didn't have self sealing tanks, but then by the time the Zero first flew in April 1939, not many front line fighters did, in actual fact. For what Japan wanted and needed, the Zero was far better suited than any European or US fighter at the time.
The floatation bag, radio, parachute was often removed to save weight and yes the Spit and 109 didn't have pilot protection in 1939 but it was very quickly added.
The floatation bag, radio, parachute was often removed to save weight and yes the Spit and 109 didn't have pilot protection in 1939 but it was very quickly added.
Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.
The loss of the IJN carriers at Midway could be directly attributed by many things, one of them is the Zero. The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's, the Zero pilots would land as soon as possible once the 20mm ammunition was expended to re-arm, all it took was a well aimed bomb to ignite the fueled and loaded planes and the carriers burnt to the water line. Fatality flawed?, yes the Zero was, because it directly influenced carrier tactics which contributed to the carriers being lost.
The loss of the IJN carriers at Midway could be directly attributed by many things, one of them is the Zero. The IJN armed and fueled their aircraft below decks as to leave the flight deck clear for CAP Zero's, the Zero pilots would land as soon as possible once the 20mm ammunition was expended to re-arm, all it took was a well aimed bomb to ignite the fueled and loaded planes and the carriers burnt to the water line. Fatality flawed?, yes the Zero was, because it directly influenced carrier tactics which contributed to the carriers being lost.
