The one most over-rated plane of WWII

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

Just Schmidt said:
You make this [lack of armor] sound like a revolutionary deviation from contemporary design standards, but while there were a few aircraft with (rather limited) protection in service when the A6M was designed, the default was still no armour.
Click to expand...
True. The Spitfire and many other top-line 1940 planes also lacked armor for the pilot (at first, anyway). That included the first P-40s. The Wildcats in service in 1941 apparently already had armor, though. Plus, the more powerful American engines (made possible by higher-octane gasoline than the Japanese had) was also a major factor; the stronger engines could lug around the heavier airframes with greater ease, and the top speeds of the Zero and Wildcat were just about the same. The Zero had better climb performance, but the Wildcat could dive faster.
 
Last edited:
Vincenzo said:
The Zero was one of the best fighter of him generation and was with a less powerful engine.
I've just the impression that there is a want to born an other myth that the Zero was a bad fighter.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that the Zero was a *bad* airplane, but I am saying it was not a *great* airplane. It had one outstanding strength, its maneuverability, and that one thing shocked and impressed the Americans who flew against it. But in the long run the relative ineffectiveness of its weak .30 caliber machine guns and slow-firing, low-capacity 20mm cannon against the rugged Wildcats offset its nimbleness. That, plus the Zero's fragility and its lack of a radio (meaning that the flight commander could only communicate with the other planes by hand signals and wing waggling, whereas the Wildcat commander could talk to his group). The end result was that once battle tactics were adjusted, groups of Zeros were outmatched by groups of Wildcats.
 
Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.
 
I think the zero would be completely unmatched if it had:
1.4x.50s instead of the og armament, .303s are useless and the 20mm had only 60 rounds early on and were very slow.
2.working radio sets
3.Went for the mitusbishi kinsei instead of sakae, no early on improvements, but it had much higher growth potential, enough to get the plane to get armor and self sealing fuel tanks, A6M8 had 1500+ HP by 1945, too late, but the engine was available in quantity and capable of at least 1300hp since late 1942.
 
Hi
The book 'Knights of the Skies - Armour protection for British fighting aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox, covers the story of armour plate quite well. The 1938 ideas for frontal armour for fighters is included below:

The idea and fitment of rear armour plate for Hurricanes (and later Spitfires) pre-dates the fall of France:



Mike
 
I dont know what it says about what actually happened but those quotes are the best laid plans of mice and men. Hurricanes were sent to France without armour but the whole discussion is odd, fitting the CS prop and using 100 octane fuel transformed the Hurricane and Spitfire anyway.
 
Zero did not just have maneuverability, it also had range, ability to be operated from a carrier, ability to be mass produced, and many other positive attributes.

But, I think the reality of the early war may be that they had much better trained pilots. Pilots that either had personal modern combat experience or had at least been trained by those who had it. The airplane was competitive for the time and theater, but the pilots had an edge. When that edge shifted to to the US things evened out. Soon they could neither continue to maintain their training edge nor continue to mass produce aircraft that could continue to be competitive.
 
I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.
 
The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.
 
NTGray said:
The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.
Click to expand...
It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.
 
PAT303,

I think it may be more of a different look at things. Your comments regarding crossing the English Channel causes a focus to be solely on the BOB scenario. However, the Zero was designed to specifications and met them. Neither the Me-109, P-40, or the Spit would have been able to do what the IJN wanted or needed. It fit the SWP battle ground. Dare I mention the P-39. Unloved by the US and Brits, but loved by the Russians. Worked well in the environment / method it was used, as did the Zero.

From my perspective the Zero was great until it's weakness's we're uncovered (lack of armor, lack of radios = employment limitation, and lack of a substantial constant improvement process that was effectively used elsewhere in the world). It was, via tactics maturation, effectively turned into a much lower threat. However, lose your head and try to knife fight it (close in turning fight) and you could find yourself in a world of hurt.

Cheers,
Biff
 
pbehn said:
It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.
Click to expand...
My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.
 
Read post No 29 on this thread from MikeMeech. The fitting of rear armour was tied in with the fitting of C/S props and use of 100 Octane fuel. This was done during the Battle of France and in some cases actually in France with Hurricanes. Spitfires first saw action over France during Dunkerque but they were operating from south England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
Frog
F
I
Anyone recognize this type of plane? Nose Art??
Replies
8
Views
874
SaparotRob
V
P-51Ds over Normandy June 1944
Replies
1
Views
216
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
M
Flying The B-26 Marauder Over Europe
Replies
0
Views
575
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register