A6M2 'Zero' vs F4F 'Wildcat' - An Unfair Fight in the Pacific?

[@joaogomes9405]

"This caused some allied pilots to think the zero was hit and was going down, when it reality all was fine" *shows footage of a zero on fire with a bailing pilot in a situation that can only be described as "all is not fine"*

[@marshaboyd6328]

W ê

[@u-bum]

W ê

[@douchebagpatrol7237]

maybe feigned bailout with a fake fire?

[@kgblagden]

He was planning on back flipping on to the wildcat to suplex the pilot and roundhouse kick the plane into space before leaping back into his zero which by then was no longer on fire for reasons. All is perfectly fine.

[@bigblockchevy427]

@@kgblagden This

[@anzaca1]

24:46 The Japanese also made the mistake of never rotating their experienced pilots back home in order to train new pilots. This meant that valuable combat experience was constantly being lost. In contrast, Allied aces were routinely transferred back home, allowing them to give new pilots the benefit of their experience. This meant that Allied pilots fresh out of flight school were effectively experienced pilots already.

[@FawfulDied]

It's why a lot of Axis pilots had gigantic kill scores, while Allied pilots rarely do--the top pilots were rotated back before they died, which doesn't lead to great kill scores, but preserves institutional knowledge.

[@anzaca1]

The Allies flew to win the war, not always the battle.

[@CorsetGrace]

The Japanese also trained their pilots in the squadrons which meant that at any given time a percentage of an operational Japanese squadron was made up of kids straight out of flight school without advanced training.

[@McLarenMercedes]

Anzac-A1 Unfortunately rotating experienced pilots back home wasn't an *option* for them as they were all fully engaged. The Americans could easily do this because: A) Their country wasn't on the frontline and not under direct attack. B) Had a large quantity of fuel, aircraft and spare parts to train a large number of pilots. C) Could rely on the airforces of its allies engaging a large number of Japanese too whereas Japan had no allies to relieve them. Japan was well aware they had to gamble by going all out at once. Even before Pearl Harbor the Japanese high command were calculating they could fight effectively about a year, meaning that if they hadn't defeated the brunt of the American, British, Commonwealth and Chinese and dealt several crippling blows they would find themselves in a war they could never win but only slug out by offering the maximum resistance... Not a mistake. Given the realities they faced they never had that option. Example: The British during the Battle of Britain 1940. No time for neither training (training was cut down by half to rush pilots to the battle) nor enough pilots to pilot all the planes. Pilots were known to fly several sorties every day and were close to exhausted.

[@McLarenMercedes]

Anzac-A1 "The Allies flew to win the war, not always the battle." And that conveniently ignores that the allies had five(!) times the aluminium the axis had. You can't train pilots if there's not enough planes. Both the British with its Commonwealth and the Soviets manufactured more aircraft on their own than the Germans did. Neither the RAF nor the VVS were ever knocked out during the war and the Luftwaffe had their hands full engaging both. That means that by the time the American pilots arrived in Europe the Luftwaffe already was spread out thin and had its hand full on many different fronts. Needless to say the Wehrmacht discovered during Operation Barbarossa already that their logistics and land forces swallowed oceans of oil - oil they mostly got from Romania and without which they'd be doomed by 1941 already. Superior tactics didn't win allies the war. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan simply didn't have the natural resources (steel, minerals, rubber, oil), the industrial input, the manpower and above all the economy to win a long war of attrition. The USA, USSR and Great Britain produce more aircraft on their own than Nazi Germany. Japan produced even less. The allies won the war chiefly through their overwhelming superiority in numbers, natural resources (THE reason both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan sought to expand their territory) and economy. Nazi Germany was on the front-line and had to make every single pilot count. It definitely didn't have the luxury the Americans had.

[@ajigglywhale5610]

Why can't the "History Channel" just hire people like you and other from KZbin that have a genuine passion to do pieces like these? This was really well made, entertaining and informative. Keep it up!

[@HPaulHonsinger]

If the "History Channel" wanted to make fact-based historical documentaries, there are plenty of people able to make them and make them well (not that Bismarck wouldn't do a fine job, as i suspect he would). The History Channel simply isn't into History any more. It is providing what its audience wants--shows about the prophesies of Nostradamus, UFO abductions, Ancient Astronauts, use of occult forces by the Nazis, and the like. There are more good history documentaries being made by amateurs on shoestring budgets on KZbin each month than air on the History Channel in any given year. Just look at The Great War Channel or Military History Visualized, if you need an example other than Bismarck. Bring in some real budgetary resources, professional presenters, and a longer format, and you've got yourself a real documentary, like they made back in days of yore when the History Channel was about history and it was Edward Herrmann voiceovers from wall to wall.

[@Guilherme-mw3jc]

Because bis didn't talked about the murican superiority 99.9999% of the time

[@AsukaLangleyS02]

He did talk about American superiority, .50's over anything else. What country needs it's pilots to have 100's of flight experience when we just shit out planes. "Better everything" is a myth. The Brits in WW1 got their superior army wrecked, and the Germans got beat by a bunch of commies who just threw millions of men at a "superior" enemy! Shermans over Tigers

[@garyK.45ACP]

Jiggly, I stopped watching TV in 2004. Don't even own one. KZbin has MUCH better history videos. Check out "The Great War" series among others.

[@Drizzleize]

Because television is for stupids.

[@ThePremiumChicken]

The Thatch Weave was such a brilliant dogfighting maneuver.

[@MrOlgrumpy]

Keeps yer roof on too

[@SunnyIlha]

It really was, since the adversary risked flying head-on with the Wildcat weave. Head-on against a Wildcat was suicide; The Wildcat was full of plate armor. It had armored glass windscreen. It had self-sealing tanks. It was built nearly like a Mack truck (the construction). It had the extremely potent .50 heavy machine gun (2,900 feet per second projectile velocity). It could be flown at full throttle under total control. And if the opponents were getting on one of the weaving duo's 6 o'clock, the weaving team-mate would be right on the attacker's own 6 o'clock, which was once again, suicide.

[@SunnyIlha]

It was a weaving-wingman movement, where both were each other's wingman. (The leadman was simultaneously his own wingman's wingman)

[@ShortArmOfGod]

@@SunnyIlha you're almost 2000 fps too high with that muzzle velocity.

[@SunnyIlha]

@@ShortArmOfGod ooops! You're correct. My bad; my typo. I stand corrected: 2,900 feet per second. I fingertip-type these comments too fast sometimes! 😬🤣

[@cryhavoc9748]

My uncle was a U.S. Marine who fought in the Pacific campaign. After taking an island from the Japanese runways were built from scratch or existing runways were repaired. He told me that sometimes the Wildcats and Hellcats would come back from flying a mission, and be so shot full of holes that you could "see daylight on the other side." Yet they were still flying well enough to get our pilots back to base.

[@Ocrilat]

British pilot John Herbert, flying off the carrier Victorious: 'Concerning the Wildcat I echo the line of our best test pilots - it was probably the finest deck-landing aircraft ever built. I once landed a Wildcat with a hole in one wing big enough to put my desk through. I've landed with most of my tail shot away and with holes all over it, and bits dripping out of the engine, and the bloody thing still flew. It was incredibly good.'

[@nickhaynie5980]

the Royal Navy used the Wildcat in the heavy seas of the N Atlantic flying off and landing on shorter decks. The rugged toughness of the wildcat was legendary

[@alexconaghan3486]

Damn good quote! Love it.

[@Ocrilat]

@@nickhaynie5980 They didn't call Grumman 'The Iron Works' for nothing. They built tough planes.

[@HaganDave]

When Royal Navy replaced Fulmars with Wilcats (Martlets), pilots said it was like move from bus to a racing car.

[@roybennett6330]

@@HaganDave poor old navy fleet arm,nearly five years behind the yanks..the fulmar, Blackburn ROC,sea gladiator,I could go on,but I shan't put the sword fish in because she defined the odds and punched above her weight. The armored decks were well thought out,and I'm sure the yanks would have liked the concept. But getting back to the naval fleet arm,most of their best plane's were American.

[@FaCubeItches]

The Wildcat's toughness relative to the Zero can't be undersold - there was an (at the time, at least) famous quote to the effect that "a Wildcat could take 3 minutes from a Zero, but a Zero can't take 3 seconds from a Wildcat."

[@I_am_not_a_dog]

Pez DeSpencer I understand the sentiment, but how many 20mm HE-I and AP rounds do you think a Wildcat could truly take? Not only that, but they’d also be peppered with MG rounds. I guess I’m saying that I wouldn’t *over-estimate* the Wildcat’s toughness, either.

[@johnstewart599]

It doesn’t take but one round to The lodge rudder or jam the flap. Let alone a round killing the engine or striking a fuel line or oil line you’re going down.

[@john.t645]

@cromwell2007 go back to war thunder.

[@veyolaski4324]

John Stewart drop a burst on the zero and it will rip the wing off

[@steviosider2415]

I’ve read many books about the war in the Pacific, and with their superior armor, sometimes those Wildcats would successfully return with over a hundred bullet hits on them. Without the armor, no Zero would survive anything even close to that.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

excellent one! You clearly set a new bar!

[@info7809]

yes a wunderbar

[@RCN2820]

PROBABLY THE ACCENT.

[@mitchelll7846]

i thought this was your second channel for a second

[@migkillerphantom]

Man with a thick german accent talking about specifications of ww2 aircraft. Certainly rather niche

[@clazy8]

migkillerphantom That is the beauty of the Web

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you! This must be the best video I've seen on combat aircraft. It has clearly been impeccably researched and presented in fine detail.

[@callenclarke371]

This video rises to the level of a master-class on historical aircraft performance. I am writing a novel about the Lexington (CV-2.) I consider this video invaluable.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A fantastic video and history lesson as always. Loved it.

[@thissucs1815]

100th like

[@evangomez7451]

Scyther Kovet I

[@Cheka__]

Those are amazing graphics, for 1946.

[@rudifeichtinger1042]

Ah Haha Ha

[@gundamnduke0]

I know right? The fact that it had color was already impressive enough

[@bigbrain2178]

@FUWWYgaymerAGAINST TRUMP ya stupid

[@hollodollo4771]

guessing you mean the photos? the cameras were analog not digital so they were never pixelized, maybe blurred or scored but not pixels.

[@Pau_Pau9]

And those graphics were calculated/drawn using slide rules!

[@jj-nv1kf]

When I talked to Saboro Saki, he said the biggest problem with the Zero was that it was too maneuverable and an inexperienced pilot would tear the wings off.

[@twinturbo8304]

Is he still alive?

[@jj-nv1kf]

@@twinturbo8304 This was in the 1990's and he was pushing 80, and I did hear that he died but a great man and I enjoy the honor of having met him.

[@j.dragon651]

if your wings are falling off it isn't that maneuverable.

[@user-hr1uw4cj2z]

@@jj-nv1kf because of G-Force? and having a light weight airframe made it easier to rip the wings off

[@RemoveChink]

What an honor... I'm super jealous!

[@airmackeeee6792]

@Military Aviation History. Love your channel mate! Keep up the good work. About 2 weeks ago I went to the museum at the Camarillo Airport in Camarillo, California. The museum hangar doors were open to view the ramp. Outside, 3 WW2 era planes were lined up, having their final checks & preflights conducted, prior to flying to Reno for the air races. What 3 old aircraft were lined up before me? A Japanese Zero, an F6F Hellcat, and the ONLY still-flying US NAVY B-25 Mitchell PBJ!! What a sight!! The museum curators not only let us stay after the museum had closed to watch these venerable aircraft, they led us out past the ramp, to along side the taxiway to watch the 3 aircraft takeoff. Amazing experience!!

[@timsullivan4566]

Excellent work! Your carefully scripted presentation delivers a clear perspective that is strongly convincing, the width of its scope assuring a thorough investigation with sources supplied for all supporting data. And this on You Tube of all places... who would've thought? Bravo.

[@GodOfWar221]

Amazing video, I can tell you put a lot of effort into it. As a fellow history buff, I can appreciate the small details. Great video!

[@justinpyke1756]

Determining performance of Japanese aircraft is a pain, even today. The Japanese didn't do us any favours by only recording performance on mil power, not WEP.

[@tucmakukla]

It is also noteworthy that the test pilots were often prone to focus on a one on one performance and on the flight dynamics (kinda like the US Navy veterans protesting switch to F4F-4 and fitting F4F-3's with self-sealing tanks, as both led to worse flight performance) - and often skip over the more "war winning" factors.

[@jamespfp]

You raise an interesting point, but perhaps you don't see how this criticism is also true for the Americans of the period. Why else do you think it took Charles Lindbergh a couple of weeks to train P-38 pilots in the Pacific how to get the most out of their twin engines? This is to say, there's a difference between engineers, and pilots.

[@hitoshisawa8479]

Justin Pyke we did some but we burnt it before and the rest is poping up these days after being hidden

[@AimForMyHead81]

Ikr

[@tnix80]

I think gaijin has stated this as a reason they have taken so long to add certain Japanese equipment.

[@pdoylemi]

Very good analysis. Possibly a tad generous to the F4F, but made the very real point that it was not the completely helpless plane it is often portrayed to have been.

[@revolrz22]

How was it generous to the F4F?

[@pdoylemi]

Note that I said, "possibly a tad generous" - as in not much if any. But the Wildcat did tend to get its ass kicked. It was more durable by far, but could only outperform the Zero (or even the Oscar) in a dive. It couldn't turn with a Zero, couldn't climb with one, couldn't fly as fast.

[@revolrz22]

You are correct, but the video itself doesn't really say otherwise. In fact, Bismarck goes to length about how pilots felt about their craft, and only posts historically relevant kill ratios. That said, I really do like the FM-2 model of the Wildcat.

[@danielmocsny5066]

Maybe not completely helpless, but obsolete the instant the first F6F rolled off the production line. It's like comparing the P-40 to the P-51. Both the F4F and P-40 stayed in service throughout the war, but once superior fighters became available the older machines were relegated to secondary roles such as ground attack and convoy escort. In warfare you want every advantage you can get - and you can't make your people much better, only their equipment.

[@thethirdman225]

+Pat Doyle _"it was not the completely helpless plane it is often portrayed to have been."_ Who said that? I have been reading about this for 40 years and never seen anything suggesting the Wildcat was "helpless".

[@nickhaynie5980]

Great video. Im happy that the wildcat gets some kudos for hanging in there when the fighting was most desperate. at Coral Sea and Midway the wildcat were hard pressed but with practical tactics they were able to hang on.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

The aerial combat concept known as "energy" fighting largely came out of the problems of the F4F fighting the Zero and is still the predominant fighter combat methodology taught today.

[@jeffreydosdall4481]

The predominant fighter combat methodology taught today is shoot missiles at them and have a stealth plane so they can't shoot missiles back... That's why we research WW2 instead of nerding out about today's planes.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@@jeffreydosdall4481 They still teach dogfighting. Yes, of course you want to engage at standoff range (preferably outside your enemy's effective range), but they still have to know combat maneuvering.

[@adferxis]

@@jeffreydosdall4481 Lmao

[@ivanthemadvandal8435]

Energy fighting was developed in WW1 and both Japanese and Americans used it extensively in WW2. US fighters had had an advantage in energy fighting due to early detection from radar allowing them to gain the altitude atvantage and also the fact the the Zero's ailerons weren't hydraulic which would cause them to be hard to control at high speeds, especially when in a dive

[@nickjohnson811]

Probably the first use of the concept in WW II was by the Flying Tigers, who were taught to only jump Zeros then dive away, which is why their lowly P40s had a positive kill ratio against them under Claire Chennault.

[@LPMGSAS]

That was AWESOME, I dont usually comment but thank you very much for this great video!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

LPMGSAS Thank you very much ;)

[@lahma69]

Excellent video with solid information and lacking the bias and emotion often contained in other channel's videos.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

lahma69 Thanks very much :)

[@carowj]

I agree , I will be looking for more of your history lessons. :)

[@azumaya6524]

I work on an a historic aircraft carrier with a FM2 Wildcat. One of my friends here is Lt. Cmdr. Dean "Dizz" Laird. He flew the Wildcat and the Hellcat. He is the only ace in both the European and Pacific. When I started to say the Wildcat was not up to par against the Zero he corrected me . He flew the Wildcat and said that the early experience of the Japanese pilot was told early on. But once the American's got a little experience the Wildcat' "was just fine". So that's the opinion of an actual WW2 ace!

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

I would absolutely love to have a job like that. I know this is old now but mind if I ask how you came into that gig?

[@danielmocsny5066]

Maybe "just fine" but once the F6F became available, the F4F was taken out of front-line service and relegated to escort carriers for convoy duty and so on where contact with enemy fighters was unlikely. In war it's not enough to be "just fine", you always want an overwhelming technological advantage if you can get it. Remember that only a tiny minority of pilots became aces. Most of your fighting force is going to be average guys. You can't make them better, but you can give them better equipment.

[@KevinBreak]

>Battle of Leyte Gulf Do you mean attacking the Japanese warships? Not sure having an -4 over a -3 would matter, can you explain?

[@DataumCats]

@@danielmocsny5066 Sure, but counting that as a negative for the f4f is like saying that the spitfire mk V was terrible becasue the RAF produced more capable later designs. This is made a more ridiculous statement because the later grumman cats actually amplified the wildcats weaknesses vs the zero in exchange for increasing it's advantages. It was heavier, turned worse, accelerated slower at low speed, climbed slower at low altitude and so on compared to the wildcat. The f6f didn't show up and suddenly american pilots were all "ok boys, time to go back to low altitude low speed turn fightin, yeee haw!" A hellcat still had zero business engaging a zero in a dogfight. The hellcat dominated the pacific because Grumman took a "just fine" design, and amplified it's strengths.They probably could have even done that off the wildcats airframe if they really had to.

[@KenjaTimu]

American individualism paid off big. Individual pilots made up new tactics on the fly and adapted. They didn't have to be taught everything and they didn't stick with their training if it wasn't working.

[@JamesSavik]

There is NO SUCH THING as a FAIR FIGHT. You go to war with what you've got.

[@herauthon]

two humans with each a stone

[@GinEric84]

Sure there is, a fair fight is what you are stuck with when your tactics are terrible.

[@ctsteve1967]

@@herauthon ONE STONE WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER AND ONE MAN WILL ALWAYS BE BIGGER AND STRONGER,

[@getmeoutofsanfrancisco9917]

Thats not the point. "Fair" is used here to purely connote the ability of one unit over another. It has nothing to do with what is literally "fair in life". We all realize that war is not about what is "fair".

[@behindthen0thing]

Wunderbar

[@neelo79]

that seemed like such a well researched and balanced video! I'm very impressed indeed.

[@KB4th]

While having a comprehension of the F4F-3 & 4 difficulties with the A6M2 Zero, this has been an informative and interesting vid as always Bis. Enjoyed the retro IL2-46 game play.....

[@TheRetu81]

Interesting how American tactics against the Zeros were pretty similar to what Finns devised during and after the Winter War. But I guess when you have a similar problem, then the solution will be similar as well.

[@andrewfischer8564]

the finns used the brewster buffalo s plane very similar to the wildcat

[@MikeLitoris66]

And they did some great job with them. 26:1 victory ratio. They shot down 477 soviet planes and losing only 19 Brewsters.

[@fazole]

The USN had a lot of problems with the quality of the Buffalo. I have read that Brewster had no experience producing fighters and limited experience producing seaplanes for the Navy. The Brewster Buffalo factory was ill suited to aircraft manufacturing, because it was laid out wiht many floors instead of of one floor. This meant assembly line techniques could not be well utilized, the airframes had to be moved by elevator and they had to be partially disassembled when moved around! Production was painfully slow and there also were problems wiht labor unrest. The Buffalos which made it to the carriers, had landing gear retraction problems and this was solved in the squadron by shaving down parts to increase the tolerances in the retraction mechanisms. This also resulted in landing gear collapsing when landing on the carrier. Boyington hated the plane, but did say it was very maneuverable before it was equipped with all the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. Maybe the Finnish Buffalos were like this?

[@joemitchell877]

I'd Like to How the Finns where So So Effective ..... With A real mixed Bag of Old Planes ... I can't even Imagine ? Service Parts ? Brave Patriots ...

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

The issue with USN Buffalos vs Dutch and Finn Buffalos was weight. The plane adopted by the USN was very different from the test models in that it had armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and survival gear including a life raft. The test model had no armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks and according to one book I read had no radio installed (take that as you will). With the weight added by the USN, no attention was paid to increasing horse power thus the stories of the poor climb rates and maneuverability. Dutch and Finn Buffalos were nearly identical to the test model. These models because of their lower weight had excellent wing loading and were quite maneuverable and successful.

[@bongobrandy6297]

Somewhere, there is an account by a Japanese bomber crew member that watched a New Zealand P40 dive straight down from very high and shoot down the formation's lead Betty. The P40 kept diving staight down and vanished into the cloud deck.

[@IrishCarney]

Ah yes, back when New Zealand had fighter planes

[@benis4958]

P40 stronk

[@kevinprokopenko7023]

Actually I believe Saburo Sakai observed it against his formations zero s. Killed the zero pilot. And thus was learned to zoom and boom vs the zero.

[@vegasspaceprogram6623]

Nz was once great. Now we're must sad

[@benn454]

Boom and zoom

[@charliep2059]

Flying a virtual F6F against A6M's in an on-line air combat game - I quickly learned what American pilots learned in real combat. NEVER turn fight a Zero. But the power, speed, and armament of the F6F gave a patient pilot the ability to attack a Zero and never be in any significant danger. The strategy was called "boom and zoom" and is described in this video. Make high speed diving passes at the Zero - climb out - turn back - repeat. Good video

[@stevenboykin116]

This is how much of a BADASS Jimmy Thach was, "In early 1940, he was placed in command of Fighting Squadron Three (VF-3). There he met a young ensign just out of flight school, Edward O'Hare, later a Medal of Honorrecipient. Thach made O'Hare his wingmanand taught him everything he knew." That's most of the first paragraph of the WWII section on the wikipedia page of Jimmy Thach. He taught Butch O'Hare (a man who has an air port named after him, A METAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT!!!) everything he knew. MAD RESPECT!!!

[@goneham4015]

Another great Bismarck video! Keep it up!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Gone Ham Cheers, I will

[@kyleglenn2434]

The lack of self sealing fuel tanks cost the Japanese a large number of pilots

[@Ocrilat]

Yup, plus no pilot armor and a lack of structural strength. To save weight pilots also removed their (poorly functioning) radio. The plane was designed and flown to practically kill their own pilots.

[@richardj9016]

The problem was, the Japanese didn't have any plot armour..

[@joecapehart5636]

Superb and highly informative video. One of the best videos I have ever seen about WW II combat aircraft.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Joe Capehart Thanks a lot! Very happy to hear that you enjoyed it.

[@slehar]

Awesome! AWESOME!!! Explanations with visual simulations! Wow! This is truly AWESOME!!!

[@brentjohnson6797]

Thanks!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thank you very much!

[@mikerostine6253]

The Zero was a beautiful magnificent piece of engineering.

[@sci-fyguy7767]

Everything went into making the plane as light & maneuverable as possible. Even the cockpit & around the gauges was as minimal as possible. The pilot even had easy access to the back of the machine guns.

[@Dv087]

" I hope you enjoyed this video " are kidding me, I loved it !

[@SunnyIlha]

I second that!

[@Mixanga]

This vídeo is amazing Bis. The quality of the content and the perfect commentary made it an awesome video. Love it!!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Danke :)

[@wallybrown9509]

This is what makes the History Channel AWESOME

[@randyallen2771]

Love your work Bismark! Very thorough presentation and analysis, really like to see something similar about the American Volunteer Group in China and their use of the P40. I heard a current Brit military avaitor with actual flight hours in several types of WW2 aircraft say that the P40 was not a bad aircraft but It's Allison engine wasn't kept up to spec so it lacked necessary horsepower.

[@fredceely]

I've read so much about this topic that I passed on this video, until today. I figured that I would watch it eventually, so today was the day. It all meshed nicely with my reading. (It is likely that we have consulted many of the same sources.) You've done a great job of fitting the big picture into only one half of an hour. I salute you!

[@whisperchainsaw102]

these videos are more detailed than most documentaries.

[@Firespectrum122]

One of the best videos on the subject I've seen! Can't praise it highly enough. As to the question of an unfair fight, it seems much like the old Bf-109/Spitfire debate, where each of he planes have their own strengths and weaknesses and success comes from exploitation of both. A highly experienced F-4 pilot could beat a Zero with little experience, and vice versa. I would conclude that it isn't the machines that win the battles but the pilots and their skills! Thank you again for the superb vid.

[@fazole]

The big difference is the USN fighter design philosophy of robustness over maneuverablity meant that a new pilot could make mistakes in combat and likely still get back home. A Zero pilot had almost 0 margin for error, a few hits and he was gone in a burst of flame.

[@AudieHolland]

Nah, Spitfire and BF-109 were much more closely matched. BF-109s had superior diving and climbing speed, they could start fights and break off at will. Spitfire pilots could turn more closely but that was probably more due to BF-109 pilots fearing they would break the wings of their plane if they turned too tightly. Biggest disadvantage for the BF-109: it could only remain 15-20 minutes in British airspace before having to turn back to base. Many had to ditch in the Channel after spending too much fuel in dogfights with Spitfires. Biggest disadvantage for the Spitfire was it couldn't dive too steeply or else its carburator would seize up and its engine would sputter. As a workaround, Spitfire pilots first rolled upside down then 'pulled up' to dive down.

[@paddy864]

And of course all of this depends on which mark of each aircraft you're talking about and at what period in the war. The carburettor problem with the Spit. was solved, or at least minimalised, pretty early on as I recall, with "Miss Shilling's Orifice"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice

[@bergasms]

US also had a very good policy of rotating pilots back into training, whereas Japanese pilots were often kept on the frontline until death. This meant arriving US airmen had heard a lot of tips and tricks about real combat, also they were given very thorough training in terms of hours.

[@fazole]

Japan also made the huge mistake of actually increasing training time in 1942-43 AND not having training squadrons for new aviators. Once they finished initial training, the pilot was placed in a squadron no matter where that squadron was assigned. If the squadron was assigned to the home islands or maybe China, then the pilot had some time to apply what he learned, if the squadron was assigned to front line locations like Rabaul, then the pilot had to learn in the worst place possible-combat. So after investing even more time and treasure in producing aviators, Japan squandered them by putting them into the front line too soon.

[@CJ-nv8zk]

Watched long ago but great video!! Two to one in statistics Wildcat victories over the Zero. Major factors were strategic situation of Wildcats being the defenders and not having to fly home 300+ miles,, and initially some of the best Naval and Marine Aviators our country ever produced, Thach and Carl had no problem vs the Zeros when they were allowed the advantange, USN Lt Thach alone's fight at at Midway is legendary. But I'm not sure who said it, maybe Boyd, "A great fighter is one that doesn't let the enemy get away". The Zero and their incredible pilots certainly didn't let many get away. "The first team" on both sides was worn out by late Guadalcanal. Then you start seeing Americans with less training but excellent aircraft up against men masters of their machines struggling from a variety of factors.

[@Charsept]

7:34 The "x" is not read as "times" but rather as "by". For example: "The AK fires the seven six two by thirty nine cartridge."

[@broncosgjn]

Great video sir. The ultimate effectiveness of the wildcat confused the British. They beat wildcats in friendly dogfights of hurricanes vs Wildcats very handily and spitfires ate wildcats for breakfast. Brit pilots had two years of battle experience while US pilots were green. but Hurricanes were smashed by Zeros and early spitfires did poorly as well so the Brits were surprised at that. The answer I think is that they were used to fighting 109s which were an excellent energy (zoom and boom) fighter while the Brit fighters were superior turning fighters. Their effective turning fight tactics against 109s were exactly the tactics to get shot down by a Zero. Their experience was against them in this case. This shows the maxim know your enemy is so important. This my guess anyhow.

[@fazole]

When and where did these duels take place. The "First Team" who flew the Wildcat from the start of US involvement in WW2 up until ajust after Guadalcanal campaign, were very experienced pilots mostly. Not green at all.

[@broncosgjn]

Not green? except that RAF pilots had been fighting the Luftwaffe for 2 years and the US had been at peace. I can not recall the exact details. I read a lot of military history and I could find it again however I am sure you can google Wildcat vs Hurricane air combat testing just as well as I can. I don't need to I already read it once and it was in something that was serious. I don't take notice of or spread posters opinions only serious sources with bibliographies that can be checked. By the way the British operated the F4 off escort carriers and called it the Martlet. I would be shocked if they didn't test the aircraft against all known types before they acquired it wouldn't you? I do know the British got their first F4s shortly after the fall of France in 1940. The aircraft were ordered by France but were diverted to Britain when France fell to the Germans. On second thoughts maybe Martlet v Hurricane air combat testing might be a better search.

[@fazole]

Green means pilots right out of training. So I still would not say the pilots were "green". I am aware of the Martlet. I think the British took it, because they had no choice. There simply was no other decent carrier fighter available. I use as my rferecnes, "The First Team" by Lundstrom, "Carrier Clash" by Hammel, Bruce Gamble's books on the pacific air war, and the Stackpole books on military history. I am also aware of Google, but I asked simply to narrow down the search. Finally, it isn't my intention to prove anything to anyone, merely to inform, and learn. So I will, thanks.

[@broncosgjn]

Ok, my meaning of green is no combat experience. My point was that the combat experience the British had was against the 109 which was a very good fighter but an energy fighter. A zoom and boom fighter. It was a climb and dive specialist and the best at this game at the time. Hurricanes were great turning fighters and turned better than Spitfires. Spitfires turned better than 109 s. The Hurricane was clearly outclassed in climb and top speed by a 109. Spitfire not so much. However Hurricanes shot down a lot of 109 s, more than Spitfires in the Battle of Britain in fact , because German pilots got into turning dogfights with Hurricanes and often lost. A 109 should have used its superior speed acceleration climb and dive. But boys will be boys and even experienced German fighter pilots tried to dogfight with the wrong aircraft and lost. I think that is the reason Hurricanes did so poorly against Zeros. The aircraft was not that bad but the pilots were using the tactics that had worked against 109 s and it was worst thing you could do against a Zero. They had no prior experience with Zeros and Oscars and paid the price. US Navy pilots on the other hand although having no combat experience against other aircraft were informed by army pilots of the Zero and the Oscars performance envelope and they developed suitable tactics. The 109 and the Zero were opposite types of fighter. If both aircraft were 1942 models and the 109 pilot stuck to his dive zoom up tactic as taught by his instructors I believe the Zero would be looser in most engagements.

[@fazole]

I don't know much about the British experience dogfighting the Japanese, so I can't comment on that. I can say that what the AVG (Flying Tigers) were learning while dogfighting the Japanese was not being transmitted to the USN. The AVG did not engage in any dogfights against the Japanese until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They were on the other end of the world and communication back then was slow. Also their leade, Claire Chennault was not well liked or respected by the USAAC, and had been forced out of that service in 1937 as just a major. From the combat reports I have read, the USN and USMC had to learn how to dogfight the Japanese on their own. It must also be noted, however, that the Japanese up until the advent of the AVG, had been fighting poorly trained Chinese pilots in old obsolete Russian aircraft. In short, they had a field day and had never faced an opponent of the quality of the USN and USMC pilots.

[@bakters]

So, in summary: 1. The Zeke was not as slow as people tend to believe. 2. It was not as bad in a dive as people tend to believe. 3. It didn't stiffen up at usual combat speeds much at all. 4. Not even as fragile as commonly stated, when we compare claims to actual losses. And you managed to say it all without making anyone particularly angry... What can I say? Your best work so far doesn't exactly convey the feeling of genuine appreciation. Really good stuff, that. I only wish you'll outdo it quickly and often. :-)

[@Nikarus2370]

3. Actually they do point out that it stiffens up above 300mph. ~16:00 And that wildcats were to exploit the plane's limitations at high speed to gain an edge. This is corroborated by pilot reports in various aircraft. Interestingly, Hiromachi (who helped Bis with this video) brought up a while back in the War Thunder forums information about the controls of the Zero. The plane in early development was found to be far too touchy at higher speeds, so the controls were made a bit "flexible". At higher speeds, control lines would stretch, and even though one was pulling back on the stick the same distance, the plane wouldn't be maneuvering so hard. Course this causes a problem, if you really NEED to do a roll at high speed or a hard turn, you can't because the control lines are stretched, and you can't move the stick farther to apply more control input. If I can find the actual post I'll link it to you, was a very interesting read.

[@bakters]

+Nika Rus - Oh, Hiromachi was helping? That explains a bit. This guy knows a lot, especially about Japanese planes. Anyway, I probably have seen the report you are quoting, and a few others. The Zeke stiffened up at higher speeds, but all planes of the era behaved the same. Was it particularly bad? Significantly worse than others? From what I have read, not really. Regarding stretching control cables - it may be counterintuitive, but it actually should lessen the force required to move the control surface the same degree when compared to the same plane with cables that didn't stretch at all. It works like a lever. Big movement of the stick translates into a small movement of the control surface, which multiplies the force *and* prevents the pilot from overstretching the airframe. So it was a conscious engineering choice, with advantages and disadvantages, not an easily exploitable flaw as often portrayed.

[@Nikarus2370]

>Big movement of the stick translates into a small movement of the control surface This is true of a stretchy control system, but you run into 2 problems. 1 You can only move the stick so far. And 2. >which multiplies the force Makes absolutely 0 sense. None of the levers involved in the controls have lengthened or shortened, so you're not getting a force multiplication there. The plane hasn't suddenly gained a new pulley system as part of it's controls. Geometry of any bell cranks involved haven't changed. So... where is the force multiplication coming from? Moving the stick twice as far? If I have 2 equal weights, 1 that I'm holding up with a 1m long rope, the other is a 1m long spring. I pick them both up until the weights are off the ground, the spring one has stretched to 2m. Does it suddenly require half the force to lift or something? Also plenty of pilot reports emphasize outmaneuvering zeros in high speed maneuvers due to the plane's limitations at high speeds. So clearly it was an exploitable flaw, one that only got worse as US aircraft became faster.

[@bakters]

+Nika Rus - "Makes absolutely 0 sense." - You are right. I made a mistake here. I forgot that the energy required to stretch a spring is converted to heat. My bad. Though, regarding "plenty of pilot reports emphasize outmaneuvering zeros in high speed maneuvers" I stick to my guns. I read quite a lot and quotes like "*Never* dogfight a Zero!", "If you dive on a Zero, keep on diving!", "If you see 1 Zero, run! You are being outnumbered!" stuck to my mind. I even remember one report made by RAF or RAAF (whatever), where they actually managed to "outmaneuver" a Zero in a diving spiral. You know how? By pulling more Gs, because they used an early G-suit. The Zero pilot blacked out earlier. He wasn't provided with a suit. Outmaneuvering a Zero was never *easy*. It if was even possible at all... (assuming a decent pilot, of course).

[@fazole]

You have to remember those quotes were for new fighter pilots. I read "The Jolly Rogers" and the "Black Sheep" biographies and experienced pilots did dogfight with Zeroes in Corsairs, BUT only on their terms. This means high speed runs, yo-yo's and exploiting the Zeroes weaknesses. The Black Sheep and The Jolly Rogers arrived in the Solomons in later 1943, so by that time, the about half the Japanese pilots in theater were inexperienced.

[@JosephHarner]

One factor I suspect contributed significantly to the claims of superior marksmanship of US pilots is the homogenous weapon layout of many US fighters. Because all of the guns of the Wildcat shared the same ballistic properties, pilots could more easily follow their tracers and lead a target with the full complement of their weapons. In contrast the pairing of 20mm cannons with smaller machineguns caused two separate points that the pilot would have to aim to at to correctly lead the target, and additional clutter to the stream of tracers that the pilot must watch to align guns on target. Given that many of the 20mm cannons aircraft mounted had significantly lower projectile velocities than their machineguns, I suspect that a disproportionate number of hits would have been made with the smaller guns any time both were fired at once.

[@CarlosPF94]

This is beautiful. This channel and your research is unmatched 🙌🏾

[@etaoinbshrdlu]

So impressive a presentation. All the way through it, I could hear Yeager's marvelously accented voice: 'It's the better pilot who wins. He finds the strengths of his airplane and has the intelligence and skill to use those the best way he can against the weaknesses of his opponent's airplane.' Paraphrasing of course.

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

I just got back from work, heard I'm famous. Saw the video. I like it a lot Bis ;)

[@Cybermat47]

Hiromachi 篠原 弘道 love your profile pic mate :D

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

I love boomerang :)

[@somehecucunt3194]

Cybermat47 same!

[@joevignolor4u949]

I realize it was only a movie, but in the film "The Final Countdown" it sure was fun watching those two F-14's splash those two Zeros.

[@KuroHebi]

That sounds like such an unfair fight.

[@benn454]

@@KuroHebi The Tomcats nearly stalled during the dogfight scene trying to fly slow enough to stay in frame with the "Zeroes" (actually Texans, I think). One of the pilots almost crashed.

[@5000mahmud]

@@benn454 same thing happened in korea, a north korean Po-2 biplane scored a manuver kill against a F9F by making the F9F stall out.

[@rconger24]

Abd, I wonder what it would have been like to see A10s take on the ME262s.

[@joevignolor4u949]

@@rconger24 Here is a hint. I once saw an A-10 in a practice dog fight against an F-4. Surprisingly the A-10 did pretty well. Whenever the Phantom got on the A-10's tail it would simply out turn it and the F-4 would fly right by it. And in our unit we had one A-10 that had shot down an F-15 during a practice dog fight. It had an small F-15 painted on its nose to give it credit for the kill. Although the A-10's primary mission is ground attack they still practice dog fighting so that if need be they can defend themselves.

[@fazole]

Very good evaluation of the A6M Zero! You did a very good job describing the shortcomings of the armament. I would add the nose guns were also said to have produced a lot of smoke in the cockpit when firing. Also, the lack of radios in the Zero, severely limited the pilots ability to coordinate attacks and defense. In the book "The First Team", the actual combat radius of the F4F as listed as only 200 miles! This is what must be considered in evaluating range. Official numbers are, I believe, exaggerated. There is also the difference between patrol range and combat range. The Zero was designed as both a patrol plane and a fighter. At very low power settings it was designed to reach the very long ranges you stated, however, in combat, the frequent power changes and high power settings would reduce that range considerably. Even with drop tanks, the Zero could not fly roundtrip from Rabaul to Guadalcanal--a distance of about 1200 miles. They could barely return it to the Shortland Islands, south of Bougainville.

[@carbon1255]

uhhhhhhhhhh Are you serious? Range is simple point to point. Rabul to Guagalcanal is 666 miles. Radius of action is one-third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel - so in a F4F would be 276 miles. Perfectly accurate for an 800 mile range aircraft. This puts the Zero at a combat range of 643 miles. is 643 greater or less than 666, Fazole? I really do have a problem with your level of ignorance though... Of course zeros had radios. Jesus Christ, at least SEE a zero first before talking about them.

[@Experten5]

Excellent analysis and video. It also supports the results that we've seen in our tabletop miniatures game, Kamikaze 1946. Glad to see that despite the simplifications required by any simulation, proper handling of the aircraft give historic results.

[@jamesmiller1253]

absolutely one of the best presentations I have seen on the Internet (You Tube) I hope all of your other explanations are as objective and thought out as this one, and yes the simulator action is a great backdrop.

[@xx_insert_cool_username_he6876]

"Why have armor if you are hard to hit?" That's what all lightly armored plane engineers say until the plane gets hit by 4 or more M2 Browning 50 cals

[@jessfrankel5212]

Excellent analysis of the Zero vs the Wildcat. The importance of experience (flying time and knowing the other's moves) and maneuverability notwithstanding, the biggest thing was the armor of the F4F. Sure, they were slower and they weren't that maneuverable vis-a-vis the Zero at certain altitudes, but they could take a pounding. You could shoot them up, riddle them with bullets, and they'd still fly. The Zero simply didn't have the armor to guard against sustained fire.

[@progx8679]

I would much rather be in a Wildcat, use it's strengths, don't fight the Zero's fight and come home alive, that is well proven !!!

[@ohger1]

Exactly. If you fight the Zeke at low speed (it's strength), you'll lose. The A6M was a terrible plane above 300mph. Keep your speed up and it's a better than even fight. Don't fight to the A6M strength.

[@jesspayne5548]

John-Del well it isn’t designed to go much faster than 300mph

[@101jir]

I'd rather be in a Wildcat because I would be fighting on the side of the US. Much better for a number of reasons, not least of which is their comparative boot camps.

[@benn454]

@@jesspayne5548 Neither was the Wildcat, but it had hydraulic-assisted controls, and was just as easy to fly at top speed as it was at cruising speed.

[@jesspayne5548]

@@101jir the early war Japanese pilots were actually really well trained and experienced and had more hours in their planes than the US ones

[@michaelbryant2071]

Absolutely on point. You used the beat available statistics. Your narrative was factual and not embellished. First rate.

[@sprngrdave]

Great Video 👍🏼Very Informative. This was as Early Action I was unfamiliar with & you brought it to Life with your entertaining & factual delivery

[@Artifactsofmars]

Their performance in the Marianas Turkey shoot comes to mind...

[@101jir]

A6M2 and F4F both had their areas where they shined IRL, but in most videogames the F4F can't make use of its ceiling altitude, and the A6M2 wrecks it. IRL, enough battles were fought at high altitude (but not as many as some would make it out to be, after all torpedo bombers and attackers need to be considered as well) that the F4F had its usefulness. Also, in games like War Thunder the Thach Weave isn't going to help a solo queue player. If you fly too close together, you can't turn into each other properly. Too far apart, and the Zero can finish off the target before they come in range (if the Zero pilot is a good shot). Also, a snap roll can allow a Zero to persist in their attack on the same target, if done well.

[@adamsmith3413]

The Zero reflected the emphasis on the offensive phase of aerial combat and it had exceptional range.

[@Georgi-Slavov-Ukraini]

But was as fragile as an Easter egg .

[@johnrettig1880]

There's two things that are important . Close to the end or even earlier the central line drop tank was carved out of wood on the Zero " Zeke " . A modified version of the F4 F - M had a " Dirty Trick " just waiting for a Zero to jump an " Under powered F4 F . The "Dirty Trick " was the F4 F- M had the more powerful engine from the F6 F " under the hood " as we Americans like to say . That on more than one occasion surprised the Zero Pilots . The younger and less trained and experienced Pilots would see what they thought was the " Older " F4 - F for an easy kill only to have the F4 - F -M's pull away and then wind up with the Zero the one being shot down .

[@realtruth4260]

Most enjoyable video. Expert commentary with quotes for reference and brilliant graphics.

[@mikehall117]

Amazing and very informative. My grandfather flew the Wildcat off HMS Indomitable in the British Pacific Fleet and shot down a Zero over Sakashima Gunto on 4 May 1945. On the same day a Kamikaze Zero narrowly missed HMS Indomitable.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

He flew Martlets.

[@mikehall117]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Actually I was wrong, he flew the F6F Hellcat off Indomitable. Prior to that he flew the Seafire LIII over Normandy during the D-day invasion.

[@johnypitman2368]

Had the pleasure of knowing James (Jim) Elms Swett Ww2 corsair pilot, triple ace i believe. Medal Of Honor in south pacific

[@crystalglass7106]

He initially flew a f4f off of guadal canal. Went from 0 kills to an ace in one outing

[@johnypitman2368]

@@crystalglass7106 yes that is true. He had a signed by all litho of him and squadron in his livingroom . His cb handle was " bald eagle"

[@theswordguy5269]

The F4F could actually outturn the Zero in a high speed dive, turning to the left, opposite the Zero's prop direction. This "trick" was learned in China, and by the time of Coral Sea US Navy pilots were generally aware of it. Used properly, assuming it had the altitude advantage and not trying to turn with the Zero at low speeds and low altitudes, the F4F could more than hold its own with the Zero. Toss in armor and a much better gunsight, and the odds start to equal. Also, virtually all Zeros didn't carry armor, let alone a radio in an attempt to lessen weight so communications were always going to be problematic. As Coach Bauer said to the Marines at Guadalcanal, the Japanese plane was faster, could climb higher and was more maneuverable. "Other than that, you've got the better airplane."

[@leeham6230]

The zero wasn't faster, it just accelerated faster. The top speed of the American planes was always higher, but their early tactics didn't match their planes.

[@jerry5876]

Coach Bauer was coping hard

[@magellan6108]

I have not seen it mentioned in the comments. I read one of the significant findings from that captured Zero was the reason for the stated problem with negative "G's." The Zero was equipped with a float type carburetor. When the Zero pilot induced negative G's, the engine would momentarily become starved for fuel causing the engine to lose power.

[@ausdoug974]

excellent video. I really enjoyed it

[@MrLemonbaby]

Absolutely excellent presentation of well researched information and graphics. Thank you, very enjoyable. May I suggest that you take a look at two other areas for future videos? 1. WWII, Pacific. Capt. Pappy Gunn modified B-25s with eight forward firing .50 cal. machine guns along with the idea of skip bombing. Said arrangement devastated Japanese destroyers and supply ships. The president of North American said that the idea saved the program. Back in the day I interviewed one of these pilots and he said he could "chew up" Jap destroyers. 2. I would suggest that you consider a vid on Col. John Boyd, USAF. He created the energy/maneuver theories upon which all jet aircraft were designed from the 70s on. More he created OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) which relates to fighter combat but to any other type of completion as well. Again very enjoyable and instructive video.

[@silvergtotwinturbo9984]

@MrLemonbaby In the Middle Ages English warships would use that idea of pointing their cannons down allowing the cannon balls to 'skip' off the water and decimate enemy ships. Aiming at the enemy sometimes the cannon balls would just go over the top of the Galleons so 'skipping' the cannon balls made more sense to cripple the enemy. There are some excellent write ups for Pappy Gunn :)

[@rotorheadv8]

The Zero was a great fighter until it found itself in front of the 6 M2 .50 Brownings firing armor piercing incendiary rounds.

[@terrywbreedlove]

Or the Eight 50 Caliber guns on the Thunderbolt

[@Nachtsider]

Actually the Zero didn't even hold up against .30 calibre fire from Spitfires and Hurricanes. The April 1942 Ceylon battles between Kido Butai and the RAF had Zeros 'disintegrating' upon being hit.

[@jerry5876]

The wildcat was strong until it took a couple 20mm HE/I

[@tsmgguy]

Thank you for helping to dispel many of the myths that have been around for so long. Marvelous presentation!

[@SmokinLoon5150]

Aces High. ;) That is the best bet for a person to fly a WW2 aircraft. The flight models are far superior that anything else out there. Oh, and some of you who are commenting really need to read. The there are a few advantages the F4F had over the A6m2: it could in fact dive better; at high speeds (350 TAS) the control surfaces responded better while the zeke stiffened up (this was corrected with the A6m3), better pilot armor, better fuel tanks, and longer firing times/more ammo. Otherwise if the F4F tried to turn with, climb with, or roll with the zeke it was at a major disadvantage.

[@apfelsnutz]

Thank you, excellent video and research done.

[@Rampant_Colt]

Lt Cmdr Flatley's statement about the Zero reflects Gen Claire Chennault's assessment of Japanese fighter plane abilities and tactics a year earlier

[@GilmerJohn]

Well, Chennault's Flying Tigers used P-40s. But with the right tactics the P-40s weren't outclassed by the Zeros.

[@GBLynden]

The F4F is an underrated WWII aircraft. The airframe is amazing for RC as well.

[@thethirdman225]

Who underrates it? And the point of this video was that it was the American tactics which made it possible for them to succeed at all.

[@thethirdman225]

Dick Zuckerburg Doesn’t lose wars? LOL!! Does Vietnam mean anything to you? There are zero signs that you’re going to win in Afghanistan too. As for the Japanese underrating the Wildcat, perhaps they did and perhaps they didn’t. Want to show me a source for that claim?

[@wallymcallister5831]

@@thethirdman225 the military didn't lose the Vietnam war; it was the traitorous liberals that lost the war!!!

[@wallymcallister5831]

@Fox Ace you obviously don't know the history of the Vietnam War and the book the top North Vietnam general wrote after the war. Anyway, any time a writer has to turn to filthy language it proves he doesn't really know what he is talking about!

[@wallymcallister5831]

@Dick Zuckerburg you obviously don't know military history. Don't you know why our US Army stripes are an upside down V?

[@steelin666]

Great video. Not surprised Hiromachi had his hand in it, he's the best.

[@mcjitsu]

Well done. Minor comment it would not be 7.7 times 56mm R. It would be correct to say 7.7 BY 56mm. 7.7 diameter bullet is about .303 caliber, or 3/10ths of an inch. The length of the case is 56mm long or 2.25 inches. R stands for a rimmed round, which is somewhat a kludge for good feeding (requires curved magazine or spaced belted feeds). Still a very good round. The same gun in the 30.06, or 8mm Mauser caliber could have held up to 700 rounds because of their rimless design. The cartridge was a copy of the original British .303 rimmed rifle round. Not to be confused with the 7.7x58mm Arisaka rifle round. Our own 30.06 (30 caliber version 1906) is 7.62 diameter bullet with a 63mm length case (slightly more powder and power being 1/4 inch longer). However the 30.06 is a RIMLESS case and feeds much more easily and reliably in automatic weapons. ...With new powders we were able to shorten the case of the 30.06 to 51 mm length. To keep from confusing it, we used the actual bullet diameter for our .30 caliber bullets and called it the .308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO. Same bullet different shorter case. More ammo in a given box of weight and size. Even shorter than the Japanese round, and RIMLESS. ...Arguably, the superior round in the 30-40 caliber range (ballistically) was the 8mm Mauser used by Germany. 7.92 mm diameter bullet (.324 diameter bullet) with a 57 mm length RIMLESS case. It could use much heavier, hard hitting bullets for practically the same physical size and bullet speed as the 30.06. The Japanese copy of the 20mmx72mm Oerlikon auto-cannon was an excellent gun. But the short case (a bit longer than the 30.06 did not give the .78 caliber bullet (about the same as a 10 gauge shotgun slug) the speed or range to make if very useful. Bigger is only better if you can impact the target with it. Their guns were chosen to shoot down a similar type of aircraft as the Zero, not so much the Wildcat, Hellcat, P-38, or Corsair. The nearly perfect compromise for aircraft was the American .50 bmg round. Big, heavy and ballistically a nearly perfect bullet shape with a LOT of powder behind it and a long accurate range. 12.7mmx99mm Rimless case. Our planes carried SIX of these brutes, compared to the Zero with 2 peashooters and a softball launcher. Just as a reference a 9mm Parabellum handgun cartridge is 9mm (.354 in.) by 19 mm (.75 inch) case. All 38 special, .357 magnum rounds are practically the same bullet diameter (.354 - .358) with longer cases, to hold more powder and are more powerful.

[@jriles70bones]

The Thach Weave was originally called the "Beam Defense Position". It was not intended to allow for a head on pass at the attacker, but rather force the attacker to fly INTO the sights of the other defender, in effect a side or beam shot. In the video @ 6:58, planes dont magically fly thru each other to get a head on shot at the attacker

[@jerry5876]

Thach weave alway seems overrated to me. Germans were using it in spanish civil war

[@shannonnezul4903]

This has probably been asked but what interest do you have in analyzing the Hellcat? Quite the upgrade from the f4f but I dont know if you could get near as much info on its later contemporaries. Well done fun video btw thank you.

[@davidwinslager6266]

Great video! The Thatch Weave was developed in 1942

[@markc6207]

So long story short. Exactly what we knew already. Zero was great early in the war and outclassed and fragile later in the war.

[@rickvelocity5578]

Early in the war all the Axis powers outclassed the allies. Germany was preparing for war since 1933, & Japan has been fighting outclassed China since 1937. Italy, along with Mussolini, have been following Hitler all along. Etc.

[@startingbark0356]

The allies designed new planes while the axis kept using mid 30's planes

[@jameseubanks379]

No armored plating! You hit it it’s dead! Shorter story.

[@jameseubanks379]

The 190 was awesome.

[@startingbark0356]

@@jameseubanks379 most american fighters didnt have armored plating either

[@emperorconstantine1.361]

In terms of Star Wars, (pre Disney sequels) the A6m2’s were the TIE/LN fighter. Before the Battle of Scarif (Rogue One) the TIE was the newest and deadliest fighter at the very start of the Galatic Civil War. The rebellion had Headhunters and other older and slower fighters (which were equivalent to the F4F Wildcats and the other early weak plane designs) until they finally got a hold of the X-Wing (the F6F-Hellcat and such,)

[@tiramisu7544]

The worst part is that the wildcat is seen as a clumsy, lumbering, slow and it's only redeeming quality to most people is the ruggedness of the airframe. In any turning fight against an aircraft that wasn't a Zero, the F4F and even more so the FM-2 could out turn any other airplane at both high and low speeds.

[@GoeT1993]

The Zero was such an elegant Machine. A flying Legend

[@nejlaakyuz4025]

Goethe93 Elegant, but fragile.

[@truereaper4572]

@@rogerwilco99 Ok?

[@xtbum3339]

@@nejlaakyuz4025 A match waiting to be lit up.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

Your quotes on range for the Wildcats are probably the result of Charles Lindbergh. He toured around with US units and gave them tips. A lot of US Fighters were able to increase their range thanks to him. And to prove his point, he sometimes flew with them, which is actually how they found out the difference in the first place. I think he had at least 5 kills before the war was over. Unofficially of course.

[@SunnyIlha]

The Wildcat was it's match however. The zero had no armor. Even .30-06 light machine gun shells would destroy it's light structure, including exploding the plane due to not having sealing tanks. The Wildcat used the powerful .50 heavy machine gun. It had substantial pilot armor plate. It had self-sealing tanks. The Wildcat's structure could withstand more Gs in violent combat maneuvering, and in a dive. The Wildcat could be flown at terminal velocity (317mph) under complete control.

[@carbon1255]

So what it had no armour, it could fly circles around a wildcat. You could make several zeros for the price of one wildcat. What is your point? Are you saying the best aircraft of WW2 was the tank glider, because it had the thickest armour and the biggest gun? don't be so stupid.

[@danielmocsny5066]

The Wildcat's guns weren't any good when the Zero was behind it. Hence the need for head-on attacks. The Wildcat and Zero could trade hits while closing head-on. The Wildcat had a better chance of absorbing the hits, whereas one bullet to the fuel tank could destroy a Zero. The fact that the USN was desperate to develop the F6F, F4U, F7F, F8F, etc. tells you everything you need to know about the F4F. Once the better fighters were available, the F4F was relegated out of front-line use. Its small size kept it usable on escort carriers for missions where it could usually avoid enemy fighters - such as hunting U-boats in the Atlantic on convoy duty. The next generation of heavier fighters couldn't operate from the smallest carriers.

[@thethirdman225]

+Sunny Island +Carbon 12 And yet, for all that, the battle was decided by tactics.

[@Odibio.Skins.]

A6 could easily out turn it tho.

[@Bartonovich52]

The Zero had 20mm canon-the same as what they use today on jet fighters after 50 cal became too small and ineffective. No F4F could survive being hit by it... it would blow open and ignite fuel and go through almost any armour it had. That’s why the USN wasn’t wholly superior until they got the F6F which could at least go as fast as the Zero and out climb and dive it if not out turn it.

[@stephenresler]

MAH, I apologize for not knowing your name, at this time. Your analysis of all things Military is simply brilliant. Thank you for having both miles and kilo system cited in your presentation. I use this material to teach my American homeschooled children (and love learning these details myself). I tend to not have a 'feel' for what a Kg means or a Kilometer. (When I bicycle now, I use the KPH setting to learn the 'feel'. Also, and in the future, I will contribute to your academic analyses with some dollars. (I have been unemployed for a period of time, but my commitment is authentic.) God Speed and God Bless.

[@anthonythomas1735]

My interests in the second world war never really took me in the Pacific direction, but your videos have changed that and I am very grateful.

[@cbwelch4]

I’d often heard that P-40’s and F4F’s both had one trick if they had enough altitude available to them. Build up dive speed and make a hard left turn as Zeroes lost aerilon effectiveness above 275 mph and don’t turn well at speed as they have large non boosted aerilons.

[@RhodokTribesman]

Not to mention that the F4F literally can't over-speed it's airframe, you could straight down and convert tons of energy

[@joshenarvidsano9976]

I feel truly enlighted.

[@blownaway9187]

Very well done Bis. Kinda surprised about the Dutch hawker hurricanes i always believed we had mostly P-36's Hawks not hawker Hurricanes in the Former Dutch east Indies, do you know of any (Early war) Dutch aerial victory's against the Japanese? i would love to hear them if there are

[@AudieHolland]

Never heard about those. I did read some Dutch warstories when I was in high school by Dutch author K. Norel. Although rather adventurously described, most of what he described, was based on real life Dutch airforce pilots. In the Pacific, the Dutch Catalina (PBY) crews relied on their radars to warn their side of approaching enemy shipping. British crews were trained to always get a visual confirmation. However, if you can see them, they can see you and if 'they' have Zero fighterplanes in the air, you're toast. Then there were some incidents where heroic KLM pilots managed to evade multiple enemy fighter planes in their DC-3 passenger planes. Ivan Smirnoff, originally born in Russia, served in the Tsarist airforce before fleeing to the west following the Communist takeover. His plane was hit by several attacking Japanse fighterplanes but he managed to make a crash landing on a beach on the Australian coast. Some of the passengers died. A few years later, he was taken into hospital because he kept complaining about pains in the upper body then they found out he still had some bullets and shell fragments in his body left over from his aerial encounter. The Dutch pilot who managed to evade numerous German fighters on his way from Lisbon to the UK was Koene Dirk Parmentier: the famous KLM pilot who won second place in the London-Melbourne airrace flying a regular KLM DC-2.

[@blownaway9187]

thank you this proves you can learn new things everyday it is great to see not only Combat pilots but also civilian pilots being remembered for their deeds during WW2

[@jamesbeaudett9057]

M

[@acballen2613]

Thank you! Substantive, detailed, all in its proper historical context.

[@jonmajarucon51]

Well done!! Love this work!!! Thank you

[@LyleFrancisDelp]

Even the "clumsy" Wildcat had a kill ratio of about 4:1 against the Zero. Zero was so agile because it lacked armor. Once the Corsair and the Hellcat entered the fray, the Zero was hopelessly outmatched. Of course, by that time, most of their experience pilots were dead. The Wildcat, Lightning, Warhawk, and Tomahawk all had great success against the Zero, due to superior pilot tactics.

[@christopherfischer6998]

It was actually 6.9:1

[@atarijaguarsgarage8873]

Not in 1942.

[@michaeltelson9798]

Add to the fact mentioned in the article that the Japanese had lost most of their seasoned pilots after the Guadalcanal/Coral Sea battles. The new green pilots had less than 6 months training while ours were getting up to 2 years worth.

[@rElliot09]

In 1942, the F4F shot down an actual 129 Zero's vs 111 losses to Zero. Its kill ratio was 1.1 to 1.

[@rElliot09]

@@christopherfischer6998 No it was not, that was its overall kill ratio against medium bombers, torpedo planes, dive bombers and fighters and in reality, it was lower than that.

[@andrewsheek]

i'd love to see you do the f6f vs a6m3.

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

It would be more A6M5 vs F6F-3 if you are interested in 1943-first half of 1944 perspective (including battle of Philippine Sea), for A6M3 early F4U-1 and P-38 are more appropriate. But either way its an interesting comparison, particularly with the statistics included at the end of the video regarding 1943-1944 losses. Though I'd draw a different conclusion regarding it ;)

[@andrewsheek]

Hiromachi 篠原 弘道 really the comparison I'm looking for would be the late war matchup for the carrier based fighters. The hellcat was America's response to the zero and is be interested to see bis do a video on how the two nations progressed through the war. The adaptations made to try and gain an advantage.

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

Hellcat was not exactly a response to a Zero, it was in development before Zero was discovered and would be delivered regardless of it. What Zero influenced was certain changes in control design and engine used, since instead of R-2600 Grumman decided to get more power by utilizing one of the most amazing engines of the time - P&W R-2800. But its not easy to say what is a late war if you want to compare Zero and Hellcat since you can pick a period of early 1944 fights or you can pick a period of 1945 where you have Hellcats bringing down kamikaze pilots in Zeros (where there is little actual combat). I have a few interesting quotes from the Battle of Philippine Sea post combat reports if you are interested.

[@scythermantis]

I'm interested. What are the comments?

[@MAG3_Hiromachi]

Sorry, was sleeping. Here are a few of those quotes. A VF-25 combat report stated: "Zeke showed usual maneuverability. Zeke out climbed three F6F's at 11,000 feet but was caught by a fourth F6F-3 with water injection. One F6F without water injection had difficulty in overtaking Zeke at sea level despite a slight altitude advantage...at full throttle. All Zekes absorbed a lot of bullets before being destroyed: none exploded in air and some did not burn at all, indicating probable use of self-sealing fuel cells..." VF-27 on June 19th claimed 30 air victories, their combat report indicated: "Japanese fighters showed little in the way of defensive tactics." Cdr. B. M. Strean, CO of VF-1 noted: "The Zekes were very fast in both straight and level and climbing flight. They could turn on a dime and there is nothing yet in our experience to indicate that we can out-dive them. In a head-on attacks, they were still shooting as we ducked under and over them. It is very noticeable that they have no pilot protection and that they blow up and catch fire easily." LT. Cdr. R.W. Schumann, VF-10 leader: "The F6F-3 is superior to Zeke in all respects except climb and maneuverability in tight slow turns. Same as before the F6F-3 cannot dogfight a Zeke. The F6F-3 must keep up speed, dive and pull up. Oscar [misidentification of a Zero] in a power dive is just slightly less fast than the F6F-3." CO of Air Group 31, Lt. Cdr. D.J. Wallace said: "The ability of Zeke to turn and climb seemed more pronounced than ever. Zekes were able to turn 180 while Hellcat was turning 90 degrees at high speed [sic!]. The Hellcat was again faster in dives and level runs at all altitudes... In only one case the Zeke outrun F6F-3 on the deck. There was evidence of self-sealing fuel gas tanks and possibly protective armor in Zekes. Zero pilots were aggressive and quick to exploit any advantage, and generally handled their planes with great skill. Wallace also noted: It is harder than ever to knock down Zekes, and consequently firing must be done at closer ranges." Final account comes from VF-16: "At low altitudes, Zeke had a clear maneuverability advantage, and could out turn F6F, especially at low speeds. F6F had a speed edge, climbing ability about equal. From 20,000 to 25,000 ft F6F seemed to have a 20-25 knot speed edge, could climb and turn with Zeke." Source for above: Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard L. Dunn, pages 132-134. The above deserves some comments. First, Zeros certainly did not have any protection in form of bulletproof glass or armored plate. Such features were added in A6M5b and A6M5c, first one started coming out of the factories in mid June 1944 so far too late to reach Ozawa carriers and latter one in late October of the same year. But they received fuel tank protection (or more fire counter-measures) by the end of 1943 in form of a CO2 fire extinguisher system that would spray carbon dioxide around the burning fuel cell (there was an automated control panel behind and below pilots left hand, which when activated would react to any detection of fire and release the gas if fire was detected. Extinguishing of fire would be indicated by a light on such panel). This was available on all A6M5s introduced since December 1943, however there were also present fighter-bomber Zeros in form of A6M2s that might have it, but it is not certain how many would as Nakajima was producing those fighter-bomber A6M2s and on example No. 92717 produced in April 1944 fire extinguishers were found. So the fact that some commanders noted that it is harder to set afire Zeros and some dont seem to burn at all while others were quick to catch fire is in both ways correct as some might have simply encountered those equipped with fire extinguishers and others encountered those not equipped. Same notion can be detected in performance as especially first wave of Japanese attack was filled with A6M2s which performed poorly at that time if compared to F6F-3 (first wave of 653rd Ku coming from aircraft carriers Chitose, Chiyoda and Zuiho was considered a Vanguard Force and was a fatal mistake as first wave could achieve surprise and cause a damage if not that it was also the weakest group having only 14-17 fighters [A6M5s] but more than 45 fighter-bombers [A6M2s] with attached 250 kg bomb and only 8 B6N1 torpedo bombers) and overall it is impossible to distinguish whether Hellcat pilot encountered A6M2 or A6M5 as for them everything was more or less Zeke. Thus some who encountered A6M5s could note that they noticed performance issues while those who encountered A6M2s or had a chance to fly F6F-3 with water injection could claim solid performance edge. Third, Zeke diving capability (especially to follow F6F) comes from the fact that A6M5s coming from the factories since March 1944 (also in some sources named A6M5a) had increased skin thickness allowing for dives at greater speeds - up to 400 knots indicated (or 740 km/h).

[@kryts27]

Diving and shooting for a few seconds (or a deflection shot) in a hit and run engagement was standard practice in aerial fighter vs fighter for all sides in all theaters of war in that era. Dog fighting was not encouraged by any side.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Amazing!!, thanks for sharing these videos!!! Liked & Subcribed!!!*

[@karlhans6678]

First I watch one of your videos, I loved it! Subscribed.