Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

[contrails16]

Hmm, so maybe I'm biased because I'm rather fond of the zero, but based on this guy's writing he seems biased in the negative. In his conclusion he makes the Zero seem like a poor design. I personally feel that the design was quite good, but just designed to meet a certain criteria. Maybe this piece was more of an opinion piece, I don't know. I'd be happy to hear what you all think, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who was picking up negative vibes from it Myth of the Zero

 

[michaelmaltby]

... it's a truthful article, IMO, perhaps you are oversensitive
mm

 

[tomo pauk]

I think this is a fair article.

 

[contrails16]

... it's a truthful article, IMO, perhaps you are oversensitive
mm

I'm not saying it isn't truthful, but the way he words his conclusion seemed strange to me, idk. Just bored and figured I'd have a conversation. Thanks for your input

 

[contrails16]

I think this is a fair article.

Cool, thanks for the opinion, maybe I analyze the way people write too much My literary tinfoil hat on.

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't think the Zero was deployed to China. IJAAF aircraft were similar in appearance and frequently misidentified as Zeros. I'm not sure if Colonel Chennault actually went up against the Zero. Otherwise it seems factual.

 

[contrails16]

I don't think the Zero was deployed to China. IJAAF aircraft were similar in appearance and frequently misidentified as Zeros. I'm not sure if Colonel Chennault actually went up against the Zero. Otherwise it seems factual.

I may be wrong, but I think some Kokutai did fly over mainland China, but as you said it was mostly IJAAF aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

I have much more confidence in your research than my faulty memory.

 

[buffnut453]

The A6M was first operationally deployed to China in small numbers but was withdrawn once it had proved itself (before the AVG flew over China).

 

[SaparotRob]

The A6M was first operationally deployed to China in small numbers but was withdrawn once it had proved itself (before the AVG flew over China).

Ahhh. That's what I was thinking of.

 

[contrails16]

I have much more confidence in your research than my faulty memory.

I've found that my memory has improved with lots of book reading.

 

[Vincenzo]

afair the Zero started as energy fighter, when they go in combat over China.
Article is good but not 100% fair and accurate
the subtitle is a shame "Mitsubishi's legendary A6M ran circles around opposing fighters early in World War II, but by 1945 its odds of surviving a dogfight were close to zero. "

 

[PAT303]

The Zero design brought nothing new to the table, the reason it had excellent performance at the start of the war was simply because it wasn't a war plane, what I mean by that is it had no armor protection or self sealing tanks, no pilot protection, no comms gear and weak guns, all the things a war plane needs, it could fly a great distance because it carried fuel instead of all the previously mentioned equipment, Zero pilots also flew at very low speeds over open ocean which greatly helped increase fuel economy. Once Allied pilots learnt not to go into a low and slow dogfight and were issued incendiary ammunition the Zero's time was up, the rapid decline in Japanese pilot training just added to it's downfall.

 

[MIflyer]

I think it is a reasonable article. Fact is, the Zero attained its performance by using design approaches that would have been unthinkable in the West - which shows just how smart the Japanese were. Of course, thinking out of the box is easier if you are not in the same box as everyone else.

No doubt the lightweight nature of the Zero has been overstated - it certainly was in WWII. I recall reading a P-400 pilot dove away from a Zero over Guadalcanal, doing rolls all the way down, having been assured that the Zero would fall to pieces; when he pulled out the Zero was still on his tail, firing away.

But also over Guadalcanal, one day a Marine pilot intercepting a Japanese raid looked down to see three Zeros blasting away at a PBY that had been borrowed from a visiting admiral to launch a torpedo attack on Japanese ships. Desperate to get the Zeros off the flying boat, he dove down and just sprayed bullets in their direction, hoping to scare them off. It worked; the Zeros broke off the attack. It was not until well after the war that the Marine found out he had shot down all three of the Zeros. Each one had taken a hit from what was probably a single .50 cal round, which had punctured an oil line, caused a fuel leak, and resulted in engine damage that led to all three of the Zeros crashing on the way home.

 

[Vincenzo]

When the Zero was designed was common not put armour and SS tanks, also the Spitfire and Bf 109 were w/o.

 

[contrails16]

afair the Zero started as energy fighter, when they go in combat over China.
Article is good but not 100% fair and accurate
the subtitle is a shame "Mitsubishi's legendary A6M ran circles around opposing fighters early in World War II, but by 1945 its odds of surviving a dogfight were close to zero. "

That's how I felt reading it, but I was not sure if I was being too critical.

 

[contrails16]

I think it is a reasonable article. Fact is, the Zero attained its performance by using design approaches that would have been unthinkable in the West - which shows just how smart the Japanese were. Of course, thinking out of the box is easier if you are not in the same box as everyone else.

No doubt the lightweight nature of the Zero has been overstated - it certainly was in WWII. I recall reading a P-400 pilot dove away from a Zero over Guadalcanal, doing rolls all the way down, having been assured that the Zero would fall to pieces; when he pulled out the Zero was still on his tail, firing away.

But also over Guadalcanal, one day a Marine pilot intercpeting a Japanese raid looked down to see three Zeros blasting away at a PBY that had been borrowed from a visiting admiral to launch a torpedo attack on Japanese ships. Desperate to get the Zeros off the flying boat, he dove down and just sprayed bullets in their direction, hoping to scare them off. It worked; the Zeros broke off the attack. It was not until well after the war that the Marine found out he had shot down all three of the Zeros. Each one had taken a hit from what was probably a single .50 cal round, which had punctured an oil line, caused a fuel leak, and resulted in engine damage that led to all three of the Zeros crashing on the way home.

Woah awesome story!

 

[contrails16]

The Zero design brought nothing new to the table, the reason it had excellent performance at the start of the war was simply because it wasn't a war plane, what I mean by that is it had no armor protection or self sealing tanks, no pilot protection, no comms gear and weak guns, all the things a war plane needs, it could fly a great distance because it carried fuel instead of all the previously mentioned equipment, Zero pilots also flew at very low speeds over open ocean which greatly helped increase fuel economy. Once Allied pilots learnt not to go into a low and slow dogfight and were issued incendiary ammunition the Zero's time was up, the rapid decline in Japanese pilot training just added to it's downfall.

While it did not bring "anything new", I feel that it was quite a novel design that some had some great benefits and some devastating drawbacks. As Allied equipment and tactics improved it did definitely lose effectiveness.

 

[ThomasP]

I would have hoped that the subject of the superior/inferior quality of the A6M would have appeared on the 'Greatest aviation myth this site "de-bunked"' thread. For anyone who has not figured this out, the answers to the following questions should help out.

As of the effective 1941 service entry date of the A6M:

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried armour before WWII started?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried self-sealing fuel tanks before WWII started?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more heavily armed?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were faster?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a longer effective radius of operations?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a better climb rate?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had a higher service ceiling?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could turn better?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could roll better?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s could dive better?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more reliable?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more maintainable?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more
capable at carrier operations?

How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s had better multi-role capability?

I suggest that anyone interested make a chart with these questions on the left as rows, different aircraft types across the top as columns, and place check marks in the appropriate boxes. Total them up at the bottom and see what you get.

 

[MIflyer]

Here is a shot of a Zero that is a bit different.