why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily
- 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
- 1,123
- Sep 29, 2025
No I'm not saying that at all.
Specifically, I was saying that the late war gyro gunsights used by the Anglo-American Allies were much more effective than the earlier reflector gunsights they had used previously, which in turn (it's worth noting, though I hadn't mentioned this before) were more effective than the iron post or telescoping gunsights used before that.
I really don't know that much about Japanese gunsights except that they switched over from 'telescope' to reflector sights early in the war. They seem to have had good gunnery training. I'd love to learn more about their gunsights.
No, not at all. I'd rate agility as a combination of mainly roll rate and roll acceleration, and to a lesser extent turn rate, climb rate, energy retention, zoom climb, dive, dive acceleration, strait line acceleration etc. Also less easily quantifiable things like control response, cockpit ergonomics, presence of a 'combat' flap setting, automatic deploying flaps, boosted ailerons, etc.
It's possible for some aircraft to have relatively poor agility but still have a good turn rate, like the Hurricane.
I'd rate handling as how easy an aircraft was to fly, including maximizing agility, without losing control. How stiff are the controls, how complex are the controls. How prone is the aircraft to entering a spin, does the aircraft give a stall warning. Does it have 'benign' stall characteristics, or 'vicious' stall characteristics. Does it have a dangerous swing on takeoff due to engine torque. Does it have trim tabs. Are the trim tabs needed during combat as was the case with some aircraft. Is it stable or unstable.
Often somewhat unstable planes are more agile but have trickier handling. For example, the F4U Corsair was generally considered more agile than the F6F, but the F6F was easier to fly.
Good handling sometimes means that whatever agility an aircraft is capable of can be exploited more easily or more often by average pilots.
A few rare WW2 fighters were known both for good agility and easy handling. Ki-43, Spitfire and Fw 190 come to mind.
So for example, some aircraft I'd rate as follows
Polikarpov I-16 - High agility / difficult handling
MiG 3 - Low agility / poor handling
Yak-1 - High agility / good handling
Ki-27 - Excellent agility / good handling
Ki-43 - Excellent agility / good handling
A6M - High agility / moderate handling (good at low speed, difficult at high speed)
Bf 109E - Middling agility / difficult handling
Bf 109F - Good agility / good handling
Bf 109G - Middling agility / moderate handling
Fw 190 - High agility / good handling
MC 202 - Middling agility / good handling
P-39 - Middling agility / difficult handling
P-36 - High agility / good handling
P-40 - High agility / moderate handling
P-40 (Late / long tail) - High agility / good handling
P-51A - Middling agility / difficult handling
P-51B/C/D - High agility / difficult handling
P-38 (early)- Low agility / good handling
P-38 (late) - High agility / good handling
F4F - Middling agility / good handling
F4U - Good agility / difficult handling
F6F - Middling agility / good handling
Hawker Hurricane - Low agility / good handling
Spitfire (early) - High agility / good handling
Spitfire (mid / clipped wings) - Excellent agility / good handling
Spitfire (late) - Middling to high agility / middling handling
Typhoon - Low agility / difficult handling
Last edited:
Irregualr23
Airman
- 63
- May 13, 2025
It's about stall characteristics and stability stuff. An aircraft with good agility may have the cost on stability. A low stability on longitudinal axis can give better rate of pitch, but the aircraft would be hard to control by the pilot. A low stability on lateral axis potentially gives better roll rate, but can lead to poor stall handling, as the lateral stability degrades near stall, roll-off would be more frequent.
Modern aerobatic planes are extremely good for agility, they are capable of doing 400deg/s roll and very fast pitching from negative aoa to positive aoa. This ,however, was done by sacrifice stability and most of their control stability are neutral and slightly negative —— very hard to fly.
A good example during ww2 would be F6F's emphasis on lateral stability, which harms its roll rate a bit, but proved to be right as it gives good stall characteristics, especially in high-power wave-off with flaps down. As you can see differences between F6F and F4U from clips below:
Good handling and stability, combined with good aircraft weapons and forward visibility, make the aircraft to be a good gun-platform which is very important for a ww2 fighter aircraft. Eventually the victory of a dog fight would be decided by the aiming and shooting.
Last edited:
There is some misunderstanding.
The rear armor glass on the A6M5 Hei was a trapezoid that was attached to the front of the support behind the pilot's head.
Its mass was 17.5kg
Of course the curved glazing of the cabin back was not armored - I think at that time it was simply impossible to produce armored glass of such a complex shape.
And as I said on some modern photos this armored glass is clearly visible
But at many WW2 photos this armored glass is clearly missing and only metal support placed behind the pilot
In manual there isn't many words said about it but process of removing is pretty clear
Removing/attaching armored plate:
Removing/attaching armored glass:
Apparently A6M forward fuel tank was sometimes removed to improve the crew's chances of survival. This is discussed in more detail in "Exploding Fuel Tanks."
Zero had special waterproof compartments to provide buoyancy in the water but I'd never studied what they looked like on a real plane.
Could you show which part you're talking about?
Lol. The difference in prise is nice
Japan also carried out work on gyroscopic sights but they did not reach the stage of completing field tests and starting serial production and very few info exist (at least in the net and available to me books)
In late 1944 Army made "Me-101 automatic gunsight" (自動照準眼鏡メ一〇一) where "automatic" means gyro sight. It was tested on Ki-43 and maybe Ki-61. Unfortunately I have 0 books or docs about it and most of information found on Japanese site (but they refer to some books there)
Navy made their own "Experimental angular velocity type gunsight" (試製角速度式射撃照準器) tests of which lasted from April to August 1945.
As minimum 2 sights were attached to the Zero (exact version not known but because of mention 20mm Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 and 7.7mm firing tests it was exactly A6M5 Ko). One A6M5 Ko was used by Yokosuka arsenal and another was sent to the 302nd squadron on Atsugi air base for real battle tests. But as it is written sight was never used in real combat.
In fact until the end of the war both IJN and IJA used exclusively conventional reflector sights which were copies of different German Levi sight models, adapted for local production.
Another interesting sight was "19-Shi Number 1 gun-bomb sight Model 1" (十九試一号射爆照準器一型) this sight was made for calculating a point of explosion of Type 99 Number 3 bomb (the incendiary cluster air-to-air bomb) which would help in hitting enemy bombers. It was tested on A6M7. But for this sight I've seen even less information and it also remained only a prototype stage.
Last edited:
Hi
For information on Japanese gunsights that is in the English language you may find the following book useful:
A couple of sample pages referring to gunsights:
Mike
MiTasol
Major
Thank you S skultew - that makes things perfectly clear
The curved windscreen panels on the P-38 were laminated glass but only about 10mm thick from memory. Unlike the flat armour glass panels they were not optically true. Fitting curved glass panels even that thin to the A6M would have required a far stronger and heavier structure to carry them and the whole assembly would have been very h
Thank you
Unfortunately the translate software did not work for me on warbirds.jp.
MiTasol
Major
Mikesh worked for the NASM so had access to a lot of information that was not available to others until he published it.
To be honest even google translate translate it easily and pretty correct, just copy full text
MiTasol
Major
Very weird. I just use google translate from official site and it translates easily
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,123
- Sep 29, 2025
yes, that's a good overall breakdown. A WW2 fighter isn't quite like a Pitts or whatever with a 400deg/s roll rate, but a couple of them got close to half of that at certain speeds, and some of these in turn had quite good handling, apparently, like the Fw 190 and the (clipped wing / metal aileron, mid-to-late war) Spitfire, and the Ki-43. I think that has a lot to do with the extraordinary success of those types.
For lets say more typical "agile" aircraft that had high roll and responsiveness but poor or difficult handling, the handling difficulties could be overcome by a good pilot and the right training. Corsairs became quite reliable after a while as part of an institutional adjustment by the Navy (US Navy, Royal Navy / Fleet Air Arm, postwar French navy, + many others)
This is (I think) also why you for example saw some early and mid-war aces do quite well in aircraft like the I-16 and the P-39, in spite of handling difficulties.
I noted the same tradeoff between F6F and F4Uin my post, but you sure demonstrated it better than I did ... wow that is an absolutely incredible video clip of that F6F taking off
. WTF was going on with that pilot!!? I thought for sure he was going to stall three or four times. Fantastic clip.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm surprised that the Mustangs were difficult to handle.
- Thread starter
- #173
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,123
- Sep 29, 2025
I'm not really a Mustang expert, but from what I understand it has significant torque causing a potential swing on takeoff, rather abrupt and 'nasty' stall characteristics (though with some warning beforehand) including tip stalls at high angle of attack and "involuntary snap rolls", somewhat difficult spin recovery, and of course problems with the CG if the aft fuel tank is full.
Some of this was due to the low-drag wing, some due to the powerful engine, and some to relatively high weight for it's size. The fin on the P-51D (and later) helped prevent an involuntary snap-roll, in fact it worked so well I think (?) they put these on some of the older B and C models.
All of these issues could be alleviated through training and experience.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A lot of engines were different. What each model of engine could take in punishment is different, as in Hispano engines were going to be different than DB engines and both could be from Merlins.
That being said there is a photo on page 131 of "Vees for Victory" of a C series V-1710 that took 14 hits (small caliber) in North Africa and still was running when the plane landed. Time of flight is not given. 7.5-8mm hits in gear cases, valve covers and into water passages are not going to bring down a fighter quickly. Oil and coolant leaks will bring down the plane in 10-20 minutes (?) but then a similar oil leak in a radial engine means a similar time of flight.
Radial engine cylinders were bolted to the crankcase individually. Larger caliber rounds could weaken or break the cylinder connection. Very few V-12s lost a cylinder head or cylinder block. A number of radials lost one or more cylinders. Staying running with missing cylinders was a problem. Some (a few) R-2800s did it. Other engines? with a cylinder gone the piston and rod end are flopping around and possibly punching holes in the crankcase. In any case with the pistons broken off the crank assembly has the balance shot to hell and keeping the engine attached to the aircraft could be a problem with much more violent vibration.
There a lot of anecdotes about engines sustaining damage and making it back. Actual percentages and actual level/s of damage are often lacking.
Saying that all radials stood up better to battle damage than all V-12s is pretty much a trope and doesn't seem to have much in the way of facts.
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,065
- May 13, 2018
As I recall, the F6F takeoff was a radio controlled takeoff with no pilot. It is posted somewhere on the forum. Therefore no pilot's seat to cleanyes, that's a good overall breakdown. A WW2 fighter isn't quite like a Pitts or whatever with a 400deg/s roll rate, but a couple of them got close to half of that at certain speeds, and some of these in turn had quite good handling, apparently, like the Fw 190 and the (clipped wing / metal aileron, mid-to-late war) Spitfire, and the Ki-43. I think that has a lot to do with the extraordinary success of those types.
For lets say more typical "agile" aircraft that had high roll and responsiveness but poor or difficult handling, the handling difficulties could be overcome by a good pilot and the right training. Corsairs became quite reliable after a while as part of an institutional adjustment by the Navy (US Navy, Royal Navy / Fleet Air Arm, postwar French navy, + many others)
This is (I think) also why you for example saw some early and mid-war aces do quite well in aircraft like the I-16 and the P-39, in spite of handling difficulties.
I noted the same tradeoff between F6F and F4Uin my post, but you sure demonstrated it better than I did ... wow that is an absolutely incredible video clip of that F6F taking off
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,123
- Sep 29, 2025
Ah, that explains it! Looks like many of my dismal attempts to fly RC aircraft!
Yep. That's why I specified "heavy rounds." (I meant .50 AP or higher.)
Absolutely, but the previous post essentially said "inlines can't be damaged from the front," which just isn't true.
Those videos are apples and oranges. The F4U pilot had no right rudder in to speak of when he cobbed it. He had both an asymmetric thrust condition, a torque roll, and an uncoordinated left wing stall due to that first problem. That rudder had to be visibly out to the right at the beginning of the sequence for him to stand a chance.
The F6F was a show off flight by a demonstration pilot off a runway, to a cute touch and go, to a zoom up. That was the equivalent of Bob Hoover in the F6F. He was as far ahead of his craft as the poor fella in the Corsair was behind it.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Rifle caliber machine gun rounds, non AP, can penetrate around 1/4in of low grade steel plate at 400yds.
AP rounds could do better. Alloy engine blocks and gear cases could be penetrated fairly easily.
It is quite possible to break cast iron car engine blocks or at least punch holes in them. Getting inside enough to damage cylinder liners is harder. Coolant "leaks" through over 1/2in holes will stop a liquid cooled engine fairly soon.
Advantage of the .50 cal was not just penetrating the engine block, it was causing enough damage to stop the engine, either immediately or in seconds. Broken cylinders can break pistons and lead to flailing piston rods, etc.
Leaking coolant or oil doesn't stop the engine until something else fails. Overheating can lead to oil failure which can lead to bearing failure and broken rods or fractured crankshaft can bring things to a halt very quickly.
And brings us to the problem with the discussion.
How much damage does it take to stop the engine in just a few seconds?
How much damage does it take to stop the engine in just one or two minutes?
How much damage does it take to stop the engine in 5 to 10 minutes?
How much damage does it take to stop the engine in 10 to 30 minutes?
Not all inline engines could withstand the same amount of damage.
Not all radials could withstand the same amount of damage.
