Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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 don't doubt that in Japan the Zero has tremendous emotional significance.
I just tried to find some information as to when they began to put armor in the Zero, but found no information at all,
Easily?So does the battleship Yamato, touted as the largest, most powerful battleship ever to sail. Yet American planes sank it easily
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.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.
NOOOOOO!!! MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!So, we now have a naval groundhog as well?
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.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.
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.
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..Yamato sure scared the bejeezus out of Taffy 3 though.
Good question. I actually don't recall reading that, but it sure sounds plausible. Anybody else know?Weren't the IJN pilots instructed to land ashore due to the lack of experience in carrier landings?
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.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.
"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.
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.
"Oh, I wondered....." Me too.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.