Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[GrauGeist]

The F4F versus A6M kill ratio became higher as the war progressed.

There was quite a difference between the ratio in 1942 and the final number by war's end.

 

[NTGray]

Glad to hear. You have refused to acknowledge that the Zero was eventually fitted with both armour and self sealing tanks, repeatedly stating it didn't have these things, but of course too late to have made a difference, which goes back to the issue of the Japanese not acting fast enough, not a fault of the aircraft's. Also you refuse to acknowledge that the Zero was the better carrier based aircraft between 1940 and 1942 out all frontline carrier aircraft, but you have acknowledged that it was far more than your initial assessment of the type, which I guess could be considered progress.

It was a clever design to have met the specification, which Nakajima believed was impossible to fulfil, so didn't bother, although the Ki-43 mirrored the A6M in many ways. It certainly was flawed, but it can be stated that it was expertly executed despite its flaws, which led it to do very well indeed, even unexpectedly so in the hands of highly motivated and highly trained aircrew. Having said that, its merits were not enough to save it as its career grew longer, those flaws becoming increasingly apparent and detrimental to the type, but the final argument about them has to be that the Japanese, again and not for the last time, dropped the ball and failed to get its replacement into service in good time, so it was kept at the front line for far longer than what was intended, exposing its weaknesses time and again.

It's no wonder that the aircraft has, in Japan at least come to symbolise and characterise the entire Japanese effort in WW2 and is held up in some reverence as a result. Not surprisingly, there are museums all over Japan with A6Ms in them.

I didn't refuse to acknowledge anything; I just tried to find some information as to when they began to put armor in the Zero, but found no information at all, so I have just assumed that it must have been late 1943 or beyond. If you can tell me when Zeroes began to appear in combat with pilot armor (and self-sealing gas tanks), I would greatly appreciate it. In any case, early in the war it was armored Wildcats taking on unarmored Zeroes; the armor situation did make a difference.
I also realize that the lack of armor was a choice, not a result of inability or stupidity.

I don't doubt that in Japan the Zero has tremendous emotional significance. So does the battleship Yamato, touted as the largest, most powerful battleship ever to sail. Yet American planes sank it easily, and the consensus is that an Iowa class battleship probably could have beaten the Yamato one-on-one on account of having several significant advantages that more than made up for having main battery shells that were smaller (16" to 18.1").

 

[nuuumannn]

I don't doubt that in Japan the Zero has tremendous emotional significance.

Yes, but you're missing the point, in the points with which you denigrate the Zero you are not seeing the bigger picture, hence my arguing against your responses, which initially were based on the usual bias against the type with little factual appreciation for the situation. Refusal to acknowledge its good points as well as its bad is biased. It would be like if I just argued that its range and manoeuvrability meant that it was the best and that's it, without acknowledging its faults.

I just tried to find some information as to when they began to put armor in the Zero, but found no information at all,

You're not trying very hard...

Mitsubishi A6M Zero - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A plate of armored glass 45 mm (1.8 in) thick was fitted to the windscreen."

"In addition, a 55 mm (2.2 in) thick piece of armored glass was installed at the headrest and an 8 mm (0.31 in) thick plate of armor was installed behind the seat."

Under A6M5b and c entries.

 

[GrauGeist]

So does the battleship Yamato, touted as the largest, most powerful battleship ever to sail. Yet American planes sank it easily

Easily?

It took over two hours, eleven torpedoes and six bombs to stop the Yamato.

It was only "easy" because the Yamato had no air cover and no significant task Force support.

 

[nuuumannn]

Easily?

So, we now have a naval groundhog as well?

 

[NTGray]

Yes, but you're missing the point, in the points with which you denigrate the Zero you are not seeing the bigger picture, hence my arguing against your responses, which initially were based on the usual bias against the type with little factual appreciation for the situation. Refusal to acknowledge its good points as well as its bad is biased. It would be like if I just argued that its range and manoeuvrability meant that it was the best and that's it, without acknowledging its faults.


"A plate of armored glass 45 mm (1.8 in) thick was fitted to the windscreen."

"In addition, a 55 mm (2.2 in) thick piece of armored glass was installed at the headrest and an 8 mm (0.31 in) thick plate of armor was installed behind the seat."

Under A6M5b and c entries.

Excellent. Yeah, I was looking everywhere and didn't thoroughly read all of the easy (Wikipedia) stuff. However, that info does confirm my assumption; the armored version appeared in late 1944, well after the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot broke the back of the Japanese Naval Air Service. Also, that model is said to have been used primarily against B-29s, not Wildcats (or more likely by then, Hellcats). So we come back around to the reality that Wildcats had armor, and the Zeroes that fought them did not. That difference wasn't the only thing that mattered, but it did matter a lot.
As for what you said in the first sentence, I think you might have been reading into my arguments stuff that I didn't say or mean. Also, I admit to being puzzled by your reference to "the usual bias against the type." What usual bias? The usual bias is strongly in favor of the Zero, as far as I can tell. My own opinion is that the Zero is a perfectly decent airplane that was built according to different design criteria than the Wildcat was. The Zero was not junk, but neither was it Superplane, and people who think of it as Superplane have too high an opinion of it. That's all. I have a somewhat similar opinion of the P-51 (though not to the same degree); it actually was a very good plane, but anybody who thinks that it single-handedly won WW2 has too high an opinion of it.

 

[SaparotRob]

So, we now have a naval groundhog as well?

NOOOOOO!!! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!

 

[NTGray]

Easily?

It took over two hours, eleven torpedoes and six bombs to stop the Yamato.

It was only "easy" because the Yamato had no air cover and no significant task Force support.

Oh, I wondered whether anybody would quibble with that. Yes, it took a lot to get that ship to sink. The thing was, the American fleet had a lot, and those American planes just kept coming, and coming, and coming, and coming, until the job was done. So, "easy" in the sense that the outcome was never in doubt, especially given that lack of air cover.

 

[Shortround6]

There were also two if not three changes to the Zero's wing to allow higher dive speeds.
The A6M2 was limited to 340kts (not mph) while the A6M3 was limited to 360Kts.

one of the later A6M5s may have had a higher limiting speed?
The A6M5 had some major differences from model to model but since most of them show up well after 1942 and 1943 they can be ignored here.
Except for the fact that most (all?) A6M5s used a short span wing with a rounded tip rather than the older big wing or short wing with square wing tip and
modified ailerons with trim tabs which are going to change roll response and effort needed to change the aileron deflection. So using flight tests and/or comparisons have to viewed very, very carefully.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Yamato Sure scared the bejeezus out of Taffy 3 though.

 

[33k in the air]

Excellent. Yeah, I was looking everywhere and didn't thoroughly read all of the easy (Wikipedia) stuff. However, that info does confirm my assumption; the armored version appeared in late 1944, well after the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot broke the back of the Japanese Naval Air Service.

The back of Japanese aviation had been broken much earlier. It was a turkey shoot in June 1944 precisely because well-trained pilots were relatively few in number.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Weren't the IJN pilots instructed to land ashore due to the lack of experience in carrier landings?

 

[NTGray]

Yamato sure scared the bejeezus out of Taffy 3 though.

That it did. But I'm not sure about those who say that Admiral Kurita broke off the engagement too soon because he mistakenly thought that the jeep carriers were fleet carriers, and that more were probably coming. The fact that three Japanese heavy cruisers had already been sunk by American carrier planes and destroyer torpedo attacks, and several more had been seriously damaged. seems a good enough reason to break off the fight. Throw in the fact that Yamato's sister ship, the Musashi, had been sunk earlier, and I can understand that Kurita didn't want to chance losing the Yamato, too..

Weren't the IJN pilots instructed to land ashore due to the lack of experience in carrier landings?

Good question. I actually don't recall reading that, but it sure sounds plausible. Anybody else know?

 

[NTGray]

The back of Japanese aviation had been broken much earlier. It was a turkey shoot in June 1944 precisely because well-trained pilots were relatively few in number.

Essentially true. The Turkey Shoot happened because the best Japanese pilots were already mostly gone. But now most of the planes were gone, too, so there would never again be a massed carrier attack on American ships.

 

[buffnut453]

Intelligence also played a key role in the Turkey Shoot, with tactical SIGINT intercepts providing real-time insights into where the Japanese were going to attack next. EdwinT. Layton's "And I Was There" is a worthwhile read on the topic.

 

[NTGray]

Battle of the Philippine Sea. Scene of one of the most famous naval orders ever issued:
"Turn on the lights."

 

[nuuumannn]

"the usual bias against the type." What usual bias? The usual bias is strongly in favor of the Zero, as far as I can tell.

There is a strong bias against the Zero and the same arguments are put up regularly against it - they can be found on this forum - and are usually made without a more rounded view.

The Zero was not junk, but neither was it Superplane, and people who think of it as Superplane have too high an opinion of it.

I don't think there is anyone who thinks it's a Superplane and I've never read such a thing, mind you I tend to steer clear of conspiratorial ill-informed nonsense. The problem stems from the "Myth of Invincibility", which was definitely a thing during the war and people believed the hype, but it was dispelled once the US got their hands on an example. The Allies got their very first information about the Zero from Chinese intelligence and that had a tendency to embellish the aircraft, but the Allies only really made their minds up once they had encountered it in combat, the usual racist derived conclusions about the Japanese not being able to build modern fighters etc, or that it was based on the Hughes racer and so on prevailed.

Now, who is at fault for promoting the aircraft as being invincible? Quite possibly the Americans during the war, either from within the armed forces that encountered the Zero or the publicity machine back home, or both. So the perception has been to put the thing down ever since, without examining the story in a fuller context. It wasn't the last time this happened either, similar things arose around the MiG-15 and the MiG-25 post war. The US even posting a bounty if a pilot flew a MiG-15 into captivity.

 

[SaparotRob]

Well, propaganda releases don't sound as cool when it says "Our brave pilots took on 32 mediocre enemy fighters and downed 6 of them".

Sorry for the over claiming.

 

[SaparotRob]

Oh, I wondered whether anybody would quibble with that. Yes, it took a lot to get that ship to sink. The thing was, the American fleet had a lot, and those American planes just kept coming, and coming, and coming, and coming, until the job was done. So, "easy" in the sense that the outcome was never in doubt, especially given that lack of air cover.

"Oh, I wondered....." Me too. I, however, sensed a trap.

 

[33k in the air]

"Oh, I wondered....." Me too. I, however, sensed a trap.

Admiral Ackbar knew what he was talking about.