Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero

[slaterat]

This incident with the Spit 8s and the Ki43s is well covered in "Air war For Burma" by Shores. The long and the short of it is that Spit 8s were stationed at a forward Chindit Airstrip named " Broadway". It was attacked by 15 Ki 43s that engaged two Spit 8s that were able to get airborne. One Spit was shot down in the air combat as well as at least one Ki43. Four spits were destroyed on the ground. The air combat never got above 2000 ft. Not exactly a screaming endorsement of the Ki 43.

 

[slaterat]

The post above is talking about Mark II Hurricanes.

I have got a copy of Paul Richey's, "Fighter Pilot", its a great book and he was an excellent fighter pilot in Europe. I am not aware of him ever flying any combat missions in Burma as a Hurricane pilot. I will take Terrence Kelly's assessment of the Hurricane vs Ki43/Zero as he actually had extensive combat experience against them.

 

[pinsog]

I have got a copy of Paul Richey's, "Fighter Pilot", its a great book and he was an excellent fighter pilot in Europe. I am not aware of him ever flying any combat missions in Burma as a Hurricane pilot. I will take Terrence Kelly's assessment of the Hurricane vs Ki43/Zero as he actually had extensive combat experience against them.

Can you send a link to that? I can't download that on my phone for some reason.

 

[pinsog]

This incident with the Spit 8s and the Ki43s is well covered in "Air war For Burma" by Shores. The long and the short of it is that Spit 8s were stationed at a forward Chindit Airstrip named " Broadway". It was attacked by 15 Ki 43s that engaged two Spit 8s that were able to get airborne. One Spit was shot down in the air combat as well as at least one Ki43. Four spits were destroyed on the ground. The air combat never got above 2000 ft. Not exactly a screaming endorsement of the Ki 43.

Ah, ok. I stated earlier that the Spit 8 was a superb aircraft.

 

[PAT303]

I started reading the book Killer Caldwell and it states that the RAAF approached Japan for aircraft pre 1940 as interim machines before buying British/American planes, never read or heard of that ever before.

 

[Acheron]

I once read that the RAF at the beginning of the war stressed dogfighting and that boom-and-zoom tactics were considered "cowardly". Anyone else heard anything to that effect? It would fit the excessive conservatism that permeated the entire British military at the start of the war.

 

[PAT303]

I once read that the RAF at the beginning of the war stressed dogfighting and that boom-and-zoom tactics were considered "cowardly". Anyone else heard anything to that effect? It would fit the excessive conservatism that permeated the entire British military at the start of the war.

I've read that somewhere also, same for attacking from 6 o'clock on unsuspecting aircraft, apparently it was important to kill the opposing pilot but you had to be civil about it when you did.

 

[Acheron]

I've read that somewhere also, same for attacking from 6 o'clock on unsuspecting aircraft, apparently it was important to kill the opposing pilot but you had to be civil about it when you did.

That I did not read. However, I think it was Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" where the following was claimed: plan to ambush a particularly troublesome German bomber crew shelved by higher-ups for being "not cricket" or being condemned as "assassination".

 

[Dana Bell]

I thought the following notes from a December 1941 report might add to the conversation. I particularly like the note on the last page, "Although it cannot turn quickly...." I wonder how many pilot believed they could turn inside a Zero?

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Vincenzo]

I thought the following notes from a December 1941 report might add to the conversation. I particularly like the note on the last page, "Although it cannot turn quickly...." I wonder how many pilot believed they could turn inside a Zero?

Possible that "Although it cannot turn quickly...." came from the boom and zoom tactics used in China by Zero in the 1940 deployement

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I wonder if that is the same intelligence that led to this gem of propaganda, where they assume the Ki-27 and A5M are the same aircraft...

 

[SaparotRob]

That was very entertaining. I wonder what year it was made. I didn't notice any copyright date.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

That was very entertaining. I wonder what year it was made. I didn't notice any copyright date.

I wonder that as well. I assume December 1941, or VERY early 1942.

 

[Big Jake]

I found the article well written and one more presentation of well known facts. Here are some additional ones (my two cents...):

1. The AVG never encountered an A6M but rather fought the Ki-43. To the untrained eye, they look "the same". Having said that, the AVGs were the first to realize a way to fight these nimble and better maneuvering Japanese fighters - they were the first to forego the "chasing the tail" dog fight in favor of the dive-fire-zoom-come back tactics.

2. The Americans only became familiar with the A6M after the recovery and flying the "Aleutian Zero" in 1942. Among other things it was discovered that due to shortcoming in the fuel supply and carburetor system, the airplane was susceptible to engine quitting during certain maneuvers such as nose over. This and other issues that were discovered during the trials were immediately relayed to operational units that adopted practices that took advantage of the A6Ms shortcomings.

3. Unlike American and to some extent British (Spitfire) designs, the A6M was a "dead-end" design - very little could be improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane. No matter how they tried, the Japanese never could develop it into an aircraft that could hold its own against the Allied new aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's what I was thinking. Brody helmets, comparing Japanese aircraft with the P-36. I like the synchronized cannon under the cowling of what I assume is really the A6M.

 

[Big Jake]

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.

What's your point? Yes, for about a year it was the best fighter in the Pacific, mostly because it was "misunderstood". When the Americans found out more about it, it was no longer the best. Even the Japanese recognized its shortcomings and developed much better fighters - for example the Ki-84 for the Army. Even Horikoshi realized that things have changed and his next design, the J2M was an entirely different design than the A6M.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Big Jake,

Did you do what I suggested? If not, try it out, you may be surprised at what the results indicate.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Unlike American and to some extent British (Spitfire) designs, the A6M was a "dead-end" design - very little could be improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane. No matter how they tried, the Japanese never could develop it into an aircraft that could hold its own against the Allied new aircraft.

The Americans entered the war using F2A's, F4F's, P-36's, P-40's, P-39's and P-43's.
Which of these fighters were "Improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane"?

 

[GrauGeist]

P-36 developed into P-40
F4F-3 improved via F4F-4 and FM-1/2
P-39 developed into P-63
P-43 (developed from P-35) developed into P-47

 

[Clayton Magnet]

P-36 developed into P-40
F4F-3 improved via F4F-4 and FM-1/2
P-39 developed into P-63
P-43 (developed from P-35) developed into P-47

P-40 is a whole new airplane, sort of.
F4F-4 is almost a step backwards, sort of.
P-63 is a whole new airplane
P-47 is a whole new airplane

None of the previous aircraft were continuously developed as first line aircraft, as was suggested to be in contrast to the A6M.
The US Navy and Army eventually got brand new designs, and THOSE were developed and improved.