Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
IMO this thread is greatly understating the biggest advantage the Zero had over the Spit. Range. The Zero had the ability to take the fight to Commonwealth airfields-while the Spit meant that Japanese air bases were safe from attack.
You need to remember that the Zero's range came from flying very slow over open ocean, combined with no armour, radio, self sealing tanks and weak guns, they were good planes early on in the war but were proved to have glass jaws very quickly.
So did the Japanese.The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.
The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance
The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.
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.
The Zero sacrificed everything including pilot protection to gain range and performance where's the European fighters sacrificed range and performance to protect the pilot, I like the Euro approach.
Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.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.
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.Fatality flawed? Perhaps you could provide a list of carrier aircraft more suitable to Pacific operations than the A6m that were available in 1941.
I'm not so sure that was a deliberate "design philosophy".
.
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.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.
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.
Miles M20. See previous post.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.
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.
...
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.
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.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.