Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
In ever said it could have been viable, just a bit more interesting 
why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
Swinging back around to the Zero a bit.
I think it's worth noting that contrary to the many legends we grew up with, as far as I've been able to tell, no Allied fighter really dominated the Zero over time until quite late in 1943 and more into 1944.
F6F and P-51 presumably did a bit better but I haven't seen clear losses from the Japanese side yet.
This is kind of from the top of my head but I have real numbers from Claringbould I'll post some more real losses for the New Guinea area in the P-39 thread shortly.
For kind of a reality check you can two raids on Bougainville in Feb 1943, which comprised the at the time somewhat infamous combat debut of the F4U. Both raids went poorly for the Allies (though they didn't realize how poorly until long after the war), but the second became known as the so-called St. Valentines Massacre Feb 14 1943
This raid on Bougainville consisted of nine PB4Y-1 Liberators of the USMC Sqn VB-101, ten P-38G from 339 FS USAAF, twelve F4Us from VM-124, for a total of 22 fighters and nine bombers. This raid was intercepted by 42 A6Ms.
US claimed 14 Zeros and 1 float plane shot down, Japanese claimed 17 fighters and five bombers.
Actual US losses were 2 x PB4Y-1, 4 x P-38G, and 2 x F4U
Actual Japanese losses were 1 x A6M
Now you might say, well this is early 1943, they are still figuring things out with the new fighter types, it's early days etc. All of that is true, but let's look at some much bigger raids on Rabaul much later in the year, in October and November 1943
For example 2 Nov 1943 - 72 B-25s from nine squadrons were escorted by 80 P-38G and Hs from six squadrons. Nine B-25s were shot down along with ten P-38s (some of the bombers were lost to AA, but most of the losses were to fighters. The Japanese lost a total of twenty aircraft counting both ground and air.
Things do seem to start shifting in 1944 which may be due to the arrival of the F6F in large numbers or it may be due to decreasing Japanese pilot training levels.
I think it's worth noting that contrary to the many legends we grew up with, as far as I've been able to tell, no Allied fighter really dominated the Zero over time until quite late in 1943 and more into 1944.
- P-38 went about 1 loss for around 0.8 victories at first, and gradually inched up to maybe like 1.2 to 1 by the end of 1943
- F4U went about 1 loss for around 0.7 victories at first, and inched up to maybe like 1.3 to 1 by the end of 1943
- F4F went about 1 for 1 pretty much the whole war (F4F-3 did a bit better than F4F-4, FM2 a bit better than both)
- P-47 went about 1 loss for around 0.8 victories and got to 1 for 1 by early 1944
- P-40 did about 3 losses for 1 victory at first (late 1941) and then got up to roughly 1-1 by the end of 1942, inched up to 1.2 to 1 by 1944
- P-39 was about 4 losses for 1 victory initially (Spring 1942) and got up to about 2 for 1 by 1943
- Hurricane I had about 3 losses for 1 victory (mostly vs Ki-43 but some Zeros too)
- Hurricane II had about 2.5 losses for 1 victory (mostly vs Ki-43, but some vs Zeros e.g. at Ceylon)
- Spitfire Mk V did about 1 loss for around 0.8 victories initially (Darwin and Burma) for both Ki-43 and A6M, then moved up to maybe 1 loss for 1.2
- Spitfire Mk VIII did about 1 for 1 (mostly vs Ki-43) and then moved up to around 1 loss for 1.3 or so
F6F and P-51 presumably did a bit better but I haven't seen clear losses from the Japanese side yet.
This is kind of from the top of my head but I have real numbers from Claringbould I'll post some more real losses for the New Guinea area in the P-39 thread shortly.
For kind of a reality check you can two raids on Bougainville in Feb 1943, which comprised the at the time somewhat infamous combat debut of the F4U. Both raids went poorly for the Allies (though they didn't realize how poorly until long after the war), but the second became known as the so-called St. Valentines Massacre Feb 14 1943
This raid on Bougainville consisted of nine PB4Y-1 Liberators of the USMC Sqn VB-101, ten P-38G from 339 FS USAAF, twelve F4Us from VM-124, for a total of 22 fighters and nine bombers. This raid was intercepted by 42 A6Ms.
US claimed 14 Zeros and 1 float plane shot down, Japanese claimed 17 fighters and five bombers.
Actual US losses were 2 x PB4Y-1, 4 x P-38G, and 2 x F4U
Actual Japanese losses were 1 x A6M
Now you might say, well this is early 1943, they are still figuring things out with the new fighter types, it's early days etc. All of that is true, but let's look at some much bigger raids on Rabaul much later in the year, in October and November 1943
For example 2 Nov 1943 - 72 B-25s from nine squadrons were escorted by 80 P-38G and Hs from six squadrons. Nine B-25s were shot down along with ten P-38s (some of the bombers were lost to AA, but most of the losses were to fighters. The Japanese lost a total of twenty aircraft counting both ground and air.
Things do seem to start shifting in 1944 which may be due to the arrival of the F6F in large numbers or it may be due to decreasing Japanese pilot training levels.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
So speaking to the OP, part of the reason why no to limited / light armor on the A6M is so emphasized is because we thought they were getting slaughtered in many engagements when they in fact were quite well holding their own.
Armor did matter and it did help, but it's just one factor among many which decided the outcomes of air combat. In aircraft design you don't necessarily get to have all the good things all at once, and I think we in the Anglophone West (and friends from other places) kind of drew the wrong conclusion that there was only one really optimal type of fighter design, when in fact there were several that were quite different but turned out to be very competitive for a long time.
Ki-43 which did have some armor, but very light compared to US and British aircraft, was also competitive through 1943.
Some Allied aircraft fighting in 1942-1943 that did pretty well also had limited or no armor, like the early Boston / DB-7 / A-20, the Hawk 75 (aka the Mohawk IV which saw long use by the British in Burma) are two which come to mind.
A bit earlier in the war the Gloster Gladiator IIRC lacked armor, the famously successful in spite of antiquated design Fairey Swordfish also lacked armor. Neither did the Italians CR.32 or most of the CR.42s have any at least initially. Some may have had plates put in behind the seat later on.
Armor did matter and it did help, but it's just one factor among many which decided the outcomes of air combat. In aircraft design you don't necessarily get to have all the good things all at once, and I think we in the Anglophone West (and friends from other places) kind of drew the wrong conclusion that there was only one really optimal type of fighter design, when in fact there were several that were quite different but turned out to be very competitive for a long time.
Ki-43 which did have some armor, but very light compared to US and British aircraft, was also competitive through 1943.
Some Allied aircraft fighting in 1942-1943 that did pretty well also had limited or no armor, like the early Boston / DB-7 / A-20, the Hawk 75 (aka the Mohawk IV which saw long use by the British in Burma) are two which come to mind.
A bit earlier in the war the Gloster Gladiator IIRC lacked armor, the famously successful in spite of antiquated design Fairey Swordfish also lacked armor. Neither did the Italians CR.32 or most of the CR.42s have any at least initially. Some may have had plates put in behind the seat later on.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
A point about armor. It doesn't work if it is not installed. When the Japanese launched their initial offensive in December '41, the RAF the USN and the USAAF all had made the decision to not install armor in their aircraft due to the added weight. Added weight means higher fuel consumption and lower performance. So to save a few peacetime budget dollars, when the Japanese attacked few aircraft had armor fitted. It would take weeks or even months to requisition the armor plates and get them installed.
buffnut453
Captain
Huh? The RAF had already installed armour plate in its Buffalos at Singapore as of December 1941. The airframes of 67 Sqn at Mingaladon, Burma, were still being installed when Japan attacked. The Hurricanes sent to Singapore were already fitted with armour plate.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
67 Sqn. Was a bit slow getting off the mark. Suffering losses on 25 Dec 1941 with several pilots killed in B-339E still lacking pilot armor.
USMC VMF-211 deploying to Wake Island with F4F-3 lacking pilot armor and SS tanks.
USN aircraft in January 1942 having to jury rig armor prior to the Marshall Islands raid. The peacetime mentality definitely cost lives at the start of the war.
buffnut453
Captain
The problem for 67 Sqn was logistics rather a peacetime penny-pinching decision not to install armour. The Buffalo's armour plate was manufactured at the Singapore ship yard and was a pain to install (manufacturing standards weren't great and installation involved crawling inside the fuselage in the heat of Singapore...UGH!!!). Getting the armour plate from Singapore to Burma just took time. Resources at Mingaladon were pretty stretched as they tried to erect all the Buffalos for 67 Sqn while also helping establish the AVG.
Hi
Reference No. 67 Sqn., on 25 Dec 1941, according to 'Bloody Shambles Volume One' page 249, at least 2 pilots, Plt. Off. Sharp and Flt. Lt. Brandt, lives were saved by the armour fitted to their Buffaloes, although the whole squadron was not yet fully equipped:
Mike
buffnut453
Captain
Thanks Mike. That's the point I made originally...that 67 Sqn was still in the process of installing armour when the Japanese attacked.
MiTasol
Major
Hi Mike
According to the Defiant Mk I Pilot notes Amendment 20 dated Feb 42 and Defiant Mk II Pilots notes Amendment 10 dated ?? 1943 or later (see Boulton-Paul Defiant Pilots Notes) the pilots gun firing button was still fitted at that time. I doubt it was inactive as it would have been identified as such or deleted from the PN if so to prevent any confusion.
Irregualr23
Airman
- 62
- May 13, 2025
I would like to know how reliable those Japanese loss records are. If I remember correctly, these losses and claims were documented by a Japanese historian, and I know that when people discuss exchange ratios in specific Pacific air battles, they sometimes tend to focus on one particular IJNAF unit while neglecting other IJNAF and IJAAF units that may have been involved in nearby regions.
For example, in the air battles involving the 343rd Kokutai over Matsuyama and Kikai-jima, other IJNAF and IJAAF fighter units were also involved. This was one reason that U.S. fighter claims in those battles could appear to be overclaims, because the historian recorded only the losses of the 343rd Kokutai. This is understandable, since many IJNAF and IJAAF units destroyed their records, making it difficult to confirm the actual losses.
I wonder whether something similar happened in that book documenting the losses of both sides in the air battles over the Solomons.
wrathofatlantis
Airman 1st Class
- 118
- Oct 2, 2023
The Ki-43-II's back armour was 13 mm thick to the P-47's 8 mm (right from mid-1943). It was smaller in area of course, which is why it could afford to be much thicker...
The Ki-43 was more than competitive than the Ki-84 well beyond 1943: Note that the first combat of the Ki-84 was on March 28 1944, but this lasted only 5 weeks until May 1944, and only involved the 22nd Sentai fighting the Chinese-American composite wing, which is to say they fought mainly P-40Ns with early Ki-84 pre-production machines...
The Ki-84 first saw real action in large numbers over Leyte in the Philippines in October 1944, so the first real P-51 encounters date probably to this later period, with relatively few P-51A or Bs encountered in the initial 5 weeks trial period in China.
This means the statement below certainly dates from a period post-October 1944, especially with the mention of refusing new deliveries (and in fact it is situated by the source as in the Phillippines, so post October 1944 100%):
-From Osprey "Ki-43 'Oscar' aces of World War 2": P.50: (Sgt Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace) "I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84. The Ki-84 could not avoid an attack that came from above, because of its poor rate of turn--- I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43, as the Ki-84 would have left you in a mighty tight spot if you were attacked from above by P-51s. ---Skilled (Spitfire Mk VIII) enemy pilots such as flight leaders would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New pilots would dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight."
The reason he says that is that diving attacks from a mismatched path required point-blank fire at 50 metres, and 50 metres per second is only 180 kilometres per hour, so the overtaking could not be much more than 60 miles an hour (100 km/h), probably less... That is why you got embroiled in dogfights no matter how you imagine Hit and Run worked, especially if the target saw you coming... (Same reason Me-262s were absolutely less than a 1:1 kill ratio until they got rockets, despite 70% getting shot down more than 50 kilometres from their base...)
Yes, Japanese Army pilots considered the Ki-43 superior to all the later type except the Ki-100:
-From TAIC Summary No. 3, 08-44, (Captured Ki-43-II pilot handbook). Comments (late 1944): "There is reason to believe that Jap pilots prefer OSCAR to the higher performing TOJO and TONY."
And believe me, this knowledge was absolutely earned in blood....
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #113
Quite interesting how much more agile Japanese fighters are compared to US and allies one.
Ki-43 II wing loading is 121 kg/m2
Ki-84 wing loading is 171 kg/m2
So it understandable that Ki-84 is a worse turner compared to Ki-43. However it is still decently better than most Allies fighters
F6F wing loading is 183 kg/m2
P-51D wing loading is 192 kg/m2
P-51H wing loading is 197 kg/m2
Spitfire mark 24 wing loading is 200 kg/m2
P-47M wing loading is 265 kg/m2
Spiteful wing loading is 231 kg/m2
I don't quite understand this part, why do you need to fire from point bank at 50 meters?, can't you just spray from 300 m and make repeated pass?, not like Ki-43 can follow these Mustang
How come? what make Ki-100 so special
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
Ki-43 pilots, used to the maneuverability of the Oscar, had trouble adjusting to the tactics required to fly a heavier, faster aircraft. When first introduced in China in 1943, generally as one or two machines in a sentai, the Ki-44 suffered due to pilots trying to fly them like Ki-43s. However, freshly trained units were able to develop tactics which proved quite effective. US and Chinese pilots were given a rude shock when first encountering Ki-44s, because it was in all ways better than the P-40s. Far superior in speed, firepower, and climb and dive rate compared to the Ki-43.
It is a really interesting that by 1943 Zero losses do not resemble the "10 lost Zero to 1 US fighter" that people are used to from stories about 1944-45, despite the fact that the US had already begun to use its newest fighters.
For example in Exploding Fuel Tanks described series of battles over Guadalcanal from April to June 1943 where fighter losses were only slightly more than 1:1 in favor of the US.
This is despite the fact that the latest F4Us and P-38s were introduced into these battles and 11 of this aircrafts were lost, as well as the fact that the Japanese had to fly over 300 miles to the battlefield.
Irregualr23
Airman
- 62
- May 13, 2025
Later production Ki-84 was quoted to have a loaded weight of 3905kg thus giving it a final wing loading of 186kg/m2. The same value as the later production F6F-5.
The Ki-84 had aboundoned the combat flap, and even though its manual stated a CLmax of 1.46, closer look on its stall speed been tested by both IJAAF and TAIC showed a closer value to 1.35. The value is lower than typical USN fighter such as the Hellcat, and the USN fighters both F6F and F4U have a big slotted flap design which greatly boosted their instantenous turn radius when been deployed.
In many cases, IJAAF fighter pilots found their Ki-44 and 84 inferior in the turning contest, even when fighting against a P-51.
Is there data of Ki-84 stall speed tests on combat flap configuration?
Typically this tests done on landing configuration and interesting to see combat one
Irregualr23
Airman
- 62
- May 13, 2025
Since Ki-61 the IJAAF doctorine had abondoned the use of flaps in combat. Reasons unknown, it was around this time IJNAF begun to research combat flaps and eventually equipped N1K and A7M with automated version, J2M with conventional fowler type. In the very last Ki-84 manual data, the use of flap was still limited to take-off and landing only.
The Japanese manual does provided results for 15 degree flap position result(take-off flap), which boosted Ki-84's CLmax from claimed 1.46 to 1.70.
The Ki-84 early flight manual quoted for power-off clean condition, the stall is around 165kph IAS, using a loaded weight 3724kg as quoted by that manual, gives CLmax ~ 1.35, with flaps all deployed, stall happens around 138kph and gives CLmax ~1.93, which fits the value provided above. Of course, I don't see pitot-position error correction in the manual, but the value seems to be quite accurate. Normally an aircraft near the stall would show airspeed much slower than actual, due to static source error, which often led to a very large incorrect CLmax. I consider the above value 1.46 may be obtained with some position-error, or it is tested using 0-thrust condition, in which the propeller is set to a point where the power is no longer fully idle( which provides negative thrust), but producing a neutral thrust, this often gives 0.1 extra value on the aircraft CLmax.
A problem about this data would be that, 15deg position value seems to be linearly interpolated, which it shouldn't be as the flap effect vs. flap angle are mostly non-linear. I would think a 15-deg flap would lead to something higher than 1.7.
It is also interesting that the Japanese report for A7M1 wind-tunnel test is avaliable, the test was conducted by using 1/7 scale model with 40m/s airflow, Re~9.1e5.
The results gives CLmax clean for A7M1 been 1.17, 25deg flap ~1.56, 35deg full-flap ~1.63. Corrected to full-sclae aircraft with propeller slipstream, CLmax would be around 1.3 clean and 1.75 full-flap --- the same value been used in War Thunder.
Last edited:
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
This is also why some of the older Curtiss types and older Spitfires did a little better,
Hawk 75 / Mohawk IV wing loading 117 - 123 kg/m2
P-40L wing loading 171 kg/m2
P-40N wing loading 175.7 kg/m2
Spitfire Mk V wing loading 132 kg /m2
Spitfire Mk VIII wing loading 136 kg / m2
And then consider roll rate
Hawk 75 max roll 120 degrees / sec
P-40L max roll 135 degrees / sec
P-40N max roll 150 degrees / sec
F6F max roll 50-80 degrees / sec
F4U max roll 70-85 degrees / sec
P-38H max roll 40-50 degrees / sec
P-38J (late) max roll 140-160 degrees / sec
Hawker Hurriane IIC max roll 50-90 degrees / sec
Spitfire Mk V max roll 70-80 degrees / sec
Spit Mk V (clipped wings / metal ailerons) max roll 105-175 degrees / sec
Spitfire Mk VIII max roll 75-90 degrees / sec
Ki-43 max roll 130 degrees / sec
Ki-44 max roll 82 degrees / sec
Ki-84 max roll 120 degrees / sec
Ki-61 max roll 120 degrees / sec
A6M2 max roll 56 degrees / sec
A6M3 mod 32 max roll 100 degrees / sec
A6M5 mod 52 max roll 100-120 degrees / sec
One of the most surprising things to me in Shores Bloody Shambles is that Ki-43s chased down P-51As, P-38s, and Spitfires several times and shot them down. Maybe due to terrain following / hills etc.?
Closer to the agility sweet spot + reliable engine
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
I think that is actually something of a trope.
In terms of combat outcomes, Ki-44s didn't do that well - it was a shock at first vs P-40s, because they couldn't out-dive them which was the standard tactic, but they quickly figured out that they could out turn and out-roll them.
