Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

ThomasP said:
As of the effective 1941 service entry date of the A6M:
Click to expand...
ThomasP said:
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried armour before WWII started?
Click to expand...
ThomasP said:
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried self-sealing fuel tanks before WWII started?
Click to expand...

you have two sets of goal posts.

You are quite correct in that nobodies (or very very few) in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried armor or self sealing tanks before WW II started.

However, the British and Germans were fitting such protection over the winter of 1939/40 and by the summer/fall of 1940 the Americans, British, and Germans considered any aircraft without such protection unsuitable for combat (or at least combat against a 1st rate adversary.) Since this was when the Zero was undergoing combat trials in small numbers in China it seems the japanese missed the Memo (Russians and Italians were doing what they could).

So Many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s carried protection and had been for months as of the effective 1941 service entry date of the A6M.


ThomasP said:
How many in-service aircraft designed in the late-1930s were more heavily armed?
Click to expand...

When?
The 109 E-3 was just as heavily armed (actually carried more machine gun ammo)
By the Spring of 1941 the Spitfire was more heavily armed. The Hurricane IIB was more heavily armed. we can debate the eight .303s of the earlier British planes vrs two .303s and two 20mm cannon.
BTW these three could be described as designed in the mid-30s
 
F4F wildcat - designed late 30's, entered service late 1940's. Self-sealing tanks, pilot armor and armed with .50 MGs.

SBD Dauntless - designed late 30's, entered service 1940. Self-sealing tanks, pilot (and R/O) armor, two foreward fixed .50 MGs (not including flexible rear .30 MG).

These are just a few of several examples.
 
Heck, the F2A-3 had self sealing tanks and armor and four .50 cal guns with a lot more firing time than the Zero's 20mm guns.

The European fighters were being given armor and self sealing tanks months before the Zero was being combat trialed in China. As has been said before, by th etime of the BoB the AMericans came to regard any fighter without protection as unfit for actually combat (not that the US was in combat but all new fighters built would have protection) .

The Zeros that were used at Pearl Harbor were pretty much built after May of 1941, the earlier Zeros had problems with wing flutter, balance tabs on the ailerons and some flew under some pretty strict limits (250kt dive speed and 5 G pull outs)
 
LOL! Something weird is going on with the internet in my area.

Hey Shortround6 and GrauGeist,

None of the aircraft that the combatants designed in the late-1930s (and/or mid-1930s) were designed with armour or SSFT (I think). And none of them were fitted with armour or SSFT until after the start of hostilities in the Spring of 1940 (I think). The F4F-3 and SBD(-2?) were still not equipped with SSFT (I think) a year and a half later on 7 December 1941 - I know neither were DESIGNED with armour or SSFT. The Buffalo also was not DESIGNED with armour or SSFT - did they have either when they first entered service?

Did the Me109s have pilot armour or SSFT at the start of the BoF?

The Me109 and Spitfire were significantly faster, and this is really the only significant DESIGN advantage that the other combatants had over the Zero when they were designed, unless you consider some to have more growth potential (maybe?).

The Japanese could have added armour and SSFT to the A6M2 if they had chosen to, and had time and manufacturing capacity. The main effects would have been to reduce max ROA by about 20%, and speed by a few mph - maneuverability and climb would have been reduced to about that of the Spitfire (II?).

I believe that if you follow the process I outlined above you will find that, although a few of the other DESIGNs were ahead of the A6M in a couple of areas, none were particularly superior in any overall sense at the start of hostilities.
 
At the time the A6M was designed, there was no other fighter in Southeast Asia that could counter it. It didn't need armor, self sealing tanks or mire than a pair of rifle-caliber MGs and a pair of cannon to down their enemy's aircraft.

The USN types most certainly were armored and equipped with self-sealing tanks prior to the U.S. being involved innthe war. And it was this feature that caught the Japanese off-guard.

Even the USAAC's P-36A had pilot armor, though it lacked self-sealing tanks and had either a combination .30 MG/.50 MG or four wing-mounted .30 MGs (P-36A-3).

The P-39D that entered service with the USAAC just before the U.S. entered the war had pilot armor.

The USN's F2A-3 had self-sealing tanks and pilot armor, but those additions caused a serious performance penalty.

So perhaps we should look at which U.S. planes did not have self-sealing tanks and pilot armor at the entry of the U.S. to the war:
Boeing P-26
Seversky P-35
Republic P-43
 
ThomasP said:
The Me109 and Spitfire were significantly faster, and this is really the only significant DESIGN advantage that the other combatants had over the Zero when they were designed, unless you consider some to have more growth potential (maybe?).
Click to expand...

No, the design advantage the Spitfire and Me 109 was they had a good combination of performance protection and firepower, the A6M didn't. If you look at the PR Spits performance it would have been easy to strip a Mk11 down to the bare bones and make a Spittyzero but they didn't, because the RAF put great value on their pilots, as did the Germans and Americans, A6M's flying across the channel in 1940 with their 305mph top speed and no armor protection would have been a nasty adventure.
 
PAT303 said:
The Zero design brought nothing new to the table.
Click to expand...
All the allied and German aircraft of the time had razorbacks whereas both the A6M and Ki-43 had far better rear and side visibility.
The Malcolm hood on the Spitfires was an attempt to improve that situation but the Japanese aircraft's all round vision canopy, even with the blinds spots they had if you did not move your head, were far superior.

AND name a single allied or European Axis aircraft that had a range of over 2,300 km on just over 800 litres of fuel in 1941/42.
 
Last edited:
As did the P-38/39/40/43 until the British insisted on these items being fitted on aircraft bound for the UK.
 
Just for the record, the A6M was a remarkable aircraft in it's design and the alloys created to make it possible.
The result was a deadly fighter that had an exceptional range and the ability to outmanouver an adversary.
It's shortcomings would become aparent when it came up against the rugged U.S. fighters, but that was not a factor when it was designed.
 
PAT303 said:
Zero pilots flew over open ocean or unpopulated jungles/islands at very low speed, as low as 130mph to get that range, that's not going to work over Europe.
Click to expand...
Japan isn't in Europe. So it was horses for courses.

Saying Zero was obsolete in 1945...fair enough. Not the fault of the airplane.

Sopwith Camel was good in its day but against a F-22 Raptor then not so much.

The Zero was good for its day but went south when better aircraft appeared.

It wasn't even the best fighter in the Japanese Navy.
 
ThomasP said:
I believe that if you follow the process I outlined above you will find that, although a few of the other DESIGNs were ahead of the A6M in a couple of areas, none were particularly superior in any overall sense at the start of hostilities.
Click to expand...

That rather depends on the "start of hostilities" and wither the other DESIGNs are limited to as designed or as modified.

As noted above the British and German planes were being modified even during the "phony" war let alone the Battle for Frances which certainly predates the operational testing of the first 15 Zeros.
It also depends on the "Zero" as there were a number of modifications in the first 150-200 built. The Zeros being built in May of 1941 had a few significant differences from the first ones in terms of wing structure, aleron response and such. So the Zero gets to be sorted out and introduced a full year (May 1941?) after the European planes were fitted with protected tanks and armor and is to be praised for it's abilities compared to planes that were designed and built that much earlier?
 
BiffF15 said:
Any background on this shot?
Click to expand...
If i remember correctly, NAS Barbara's Point was attacked durning the Pearl Harbor attack and a couple of Zero's were shot down. If you can make it there now, you can see memorial stones of the planes which crashed and even the pilot's name on/close to crash site. This is what I remember for we stopped for gas returning from Kadnea AFB/Wake Island headed to NAS Brunswick ME, in a P-3.

Timmy B
P-3B Radio Operator
P-3C Inflight Tech/Ord
 
Well put
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
640
Ivan1GFP
I
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
899
Shortround6
S
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
518
spicmart
S
Whenever I come across a comparison featuring the Zero alongside more advanced aircraft...
Replies
1
Views
820
yulzari
Menu
Log in
Register