Ki-43 or A6M "Zero": Which is Superior?

Hey guys Tipton Bros here! Thanks for watching the video if you want more videos leave a like and subscribe to the channel! If you want to see our latest video: • 5 Unusual Firearms of ...
-
If you enjoy this type of content let us know and we’d be happy to release similar videos. We will be releasing a variety of videos in the future so let us know what you like most. Thanks again, Tipton Bros!

[@TiptonBros]

Accidentally swapped the terms service ceiling and optimal power altitude towards the end of the video. The A6M5 also had two 13mm guns located to the outside of the 20mm cannons. More errors than I had realized, I will probably revise this video in the future. Cheers!

[@laughingdaffodils5450]

That particular omission only reinforces your final point, however - the Zero has a significantly more powerful gunload, making it a better choice for air to air combat. The .50 cal worked for the US - but by the end of the war US fighters were carrying what, 8 of them? Not a single .50 with a couple of LMGs. The Zero comes to the party with 20mm excellent performance and an absolutely insane operational range, it's an excellent fleet fighter. Oscar has just what it needs to deal with Soviet fighters of the time, and nearly four times the bomb load as the Zero. Surely they were called on to drop bombs now and then.

[@TiptonBros]

@@laughingdaffodils5450 last iterations of the zero were really quite impressive, armament and all. Appreciate the comment, thank you for the support!

[@TiptonBros]

@Myron Bennett I’m remaking this video at some point in the further as it is laden with errors, far from perfect. I appreciate the comment.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Japanese cannon were small low velocity and low rate of fire guns similar to those in the Bf109E.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 They were even slower than Me-109E's MG FF: 550 vs 650 rpm. Later high velocity type 99-2 got even slower: 480 rpm, which is terrible with mismatching velocity to the aiming nose 7.7 mms, which consequently did most of the work... The guns were even worse than on Ki-43, and the worst thing about the Zero. Even with 4 type 99s the N1K was slow to get kills... Army guns were way better, except when synchronized with the prop, but even then they had better explosive effect than Navy guns. [Edit: It does appear that the uniquely heavy type 99 shells were uniquely capable of breaking main wing spars compared to most other 20 mm shells, blowing off even Hellcat wings when they hit them right. But this was still a matter of chance, and the low density of hits issue remained, even if the destructive result was occasionally impressive on the wings of Hellcats and P-38s in particular.]

[@brealistic3542]

The Oscar was even more manuverable then the Zero.

[@scootergeorge7089]

So? It lacked the armament of the A6M as well as the ability to operate aboard ship. Japan would have been better off using the Zero across the board.

[@Vrooto]

​​@@scootergeorge7089they both had 20mm cannons. Sure the ki43 didnt have 7.7mm machine guns but those are practically peashooters. Plus if your best argument is "cant operate on a aircraft carrier" then that would apply to most aircraft built, spitfire, p51 mustang, bf109, p40, etc. Edit: also to clarify im talking about the ki 43 III

[@pinngg6907]

the ki-43 only has an armament on it's nose. so it's either 2x7.7mm, 1x7.7mm and 1x12.7mm, or 2x12.7mm and the ki-43-III variant has 20mm autocannon replacing the machinegun

[@edwardstowers7272]

The first Zeros used at Pearl Harbor, the A6M2 Model 21 carried a 20mm in each wing with 60 rounds each in addition to two 7.7mm machine guns in the nose right off the bat. It had a tremendous range, too. That knock-down power exceeded the Oscar’s knockdown power, as the Ki-43 had only the nose guns, which was similar to the firepower of a WWI fighter, vastly insufficient to bring down bombers like the B-24. The skill of the Imperial Navy pilots, particularly early in the war (pre-Midway) was generally better than the Army’s due to carrier training. The Oscar never gained the firepower of the Zero, but the Zero kept increasing its firepower right up to 1945. By then, both were obsolete; the Oscar was replaced by the Ki-84 Frank and the Zero by the Raiden. By then the main difference was in pilot skill, as most Japanese aces were dead. The Oscar was more maneuverable, and definitely more reliable than the Ki-44 Tojo or Ki-61 Tony, but it could not dive like a Tony. You could dive away from an Oscar or a Zero, but not a Tony. Until the Ki-84, however, Japanese Army fighters had inferior firepower compared to their Navy counterparts. The loss of resupply lines due to sub warfare and the improving qualities of more advanced Allied fighters (P-38, P-47, P-51, Corsair and Hellcat) soon overwhelmed them, but until the Frank cane along with 20mm cannon, the Zero was the more formidable machine, In combat it all came down to pilot skill and luck. Prettiness means nothing, but a better pilot with a better machine is decisive.

[@allangibson2408]

The biggest problem (other than lack of armor) in the Zero was the radio. It just didn’t work properly inhibiting co-ordination between aircraft and radar intercept management. This left fighters in the wrong places fairly frequently (Midway for example).

[@edwardpate6128]

I'll say that I've always thought the Ki-43 was the prettier of the two.

[@MrRobster1234]

I agree. Several top American aces including McGuire died in scraps with Oscars/

[@edwardpate6128]

@@MrRobster1234 As did P-47 ace Neil Kearby.

[@davidmayes2948]

Thanks for the video! I’ve been wanting to learn about other countries aircraft. I appreciate the information and I think I may research into Japanese aviation for my next country to study.

[@TiptonBros]

No problem! We will continue to put out similar content, appreciate the comment and best of luck!

[@Sirharryflash82]

I would take the Zero every day and twice on Sunday.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Ha-115 (Sakae 21) engine had a two speed supercharger. That is NOTHING like a two stage supercharger. Two speed gives two high power altitude bands. Two stage gives higher boost in an altitude band. 2 stage usually was combined with two or more speeds but 2 speed single stage was common, FW 190A, Typhoon etc and Ki-43.

[@beachboy0505]

Excellent video 📹

[@TiptonBros]

Thank you! Appreciate it.

[@richarddumont5389]

A6m5 had a ha 115 / Sakae 21 and exactly the same power as the Ki43 II … talk about a well researched video…

[@TiptonBros]

We appreciate the correction but there's no need to be rude.

[@marcosfernandez7207]

At the time, Nakajima engineers were against armament in the wings. So, only the very last Ki43 version had cannons, but were not used in combat. Overall, the Zero was a much more equilibrated combat aircraft. The fact that the Hayabusa was produced until the end of the war, when it was completely outclassed as a combat aircraft is due to the small capacity of the japanese aircraft industry, as the jigs and tools were available to make more airplanes. However, some japanese pilots used this nimble aircraft, armed with only two .50 machine guns, hampered by sincronization and a low power cartridge, to bring down bombers like the B24 or fighters like the P51, due to sheer markmanship and flying skills (and courage). Both aircraft were very light constructions, and vulnerable to even a few well placed fifty caliber shots. In the end, the Zero was the superior fighting machine, while the Ki43 is probably the most difficult aircraft to be flown successfully in combat, real or simulated. Good idea your video, even requiring a few corrections.

[@TiptonBros]

I’m inevitably going to remake this at some point because of the amount of errors. I really appreciate the encouragement, thank you.

[@marcosfernandez7207]

@@TiptonBros , go ahead and have your video revised, the idea is very original and the planes history is very interesting! Good to know you liked my comments. I like very much the small and simple Ki43, and have a deep respect for the men who get up in such a flinsy machine against allied really powerful airplanes. How wrong their efforts turned to be, supporting a war of aggression... But this is the destiny of most soldiers, to give their best to causes that do not deserve the sacrifice. This is what I've thought about the Peregrine Falcon... perhaps you can have a think on this aspect too. A cordial salut from Brazil!

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

Not true: The Ki-43 had more kills and was preferred to the Ki-84 (660 km/h) all the way to the end. Turning tightly mattered more than historians think.

[@ivan5595]

Really? ki-84 was a good design fuelled by poor reliability caused by issues like bad steel quality and that engine. It was a relatively small engine but they squeezed as much as power from it as possible... You can imagine how bad maintaining it is gonna be in late war. I honestly think that may be the bigger reason why pilots may prefer the Ki-43

[@masbeetleboy9169]

Great video, so allow me to humbly add my 2 cents worth of info. Both of these iconic fighters were pre-war designs that fought from the start to the end of WWII, and were modified to try to cope with the ever increasing demands of war. 1. All ki-43IIs were armed with 2 ho-103 12.7mm machine guns, could carry 2 550lb bombs and had a ferry range of 1990 miles with 2 external drop tanks. Top speed was between 330-340 mph at under 14000 ft. Though it had less agility and more weight than the ki-43i it replaced, the ki-43ii was stronger, faster, better protected, and more versatile. It entered production in late 1942 and became the IJAF's main, base fighter for the remainder of the war. 2. The A6M5 was built as an stop gap measure following the failed A6m4 program in the Autumn of 1943. Using the same engine and airframe as the A6M3, it used a new wing and exhaust system. It was heavier but faster, top speed jumping to 351mph at about 20,000 ft. From here onward, the Zero would see constant, minor upgrades to allow it to keep pace with mainly the F6F Hellcat, but as it got heavier and its performance degraded, things got worse for the IJNAF. Both these fighters were saddled with the same engine they started the war with and never managed much more than 1200hp out of it.

[@ivan5595]

The best example of the "too many guns" zero is the A6M6 series. Heavily armed with 2 20mm FFL and 3x 13.2mm Browning's, with features like self sealing fuel tank and armor on top of it...needless to say, such an arrangement is better suited for the Ki 84/N1K2.

[@Colt45hatchback]

Im fairly sure the a6m5 had 12.7mm machine guns and then later 13.2mm mg's and the engines horsepower is wrong. Im almost certain the engines are the same in both aircraft, although the oil cooler is different. Later a6m variants had 1150hp if i recall correctly. The army and navy designated their engines differently, but im pretty sure they are actually the same base engine. I spent a fair amount of time looking over the engine from a crashed ki43 ii or iii and an a6m2 in its entireity at the canberra war memorial three years ago, it was the reason i made the 1200km journey to the war memorial museum (to see an a6m in person) i think both planes are good, although the ki43 is less suited to war use than the zero in a few ways, but regardless they are both aircraft i would love to own and fly.

[@TiptonBros]

Appreciate the comment! As soon as we released the video I released my mistake on the horsepower. As for the same base engine between the army and navy being the same I’ve heard that a number of times but could not find enough evidence to throw it in the video. Maybe I should take a deeper dive into the engines of both aircraft. If you’d like to see something in the future feel free to let us know. As always, thank you for the comment. 😃

[@TiptonBros]

The A6m5 on the initial pattern did indeed have 2 13mm guns which again I did not mention unfortunately, this video is far from perfect. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the first pattern A6m5 still had the nose mounted 7.7 machine gun which was removed on later evolutions of the A6m5.

[@Colt45hatchback]

@@TiptonBros yes please, i have a hard time finding accurate information on japanese ww2 aircraft, so any further well researched from primary source material information put online would be greatly appreciated

[@TiptonBros]

@@Colt45hatchback it’s one of the more difficult videos to do. The information seems to be pretty murky and conflicting. But I will get to it for you. Thanks for the reply. 👍🏻

[@Colt45hatchback]

@@TiptonBros yeah I understand, thankyou so much. Much appreciated

[@TheDkeeler]

The Ki 43 II must of made a potent fighter bomber since it could carry 1100lbs of bombs compared to only 260lbs of the A6M5.

[@TiptonBros]

Absolutely, it’s definitely a tough choice between the aircraft. Appreciate the comment!

[@TheDkeeler]

@@TiptonBros Your welcome.

[@Chibanah]

Ki-43 was better a bit considering air fight. The Zero's main advantage was its range and (light weight, which was also its weakness in the same time), so they can use it for long range surprise attack from carriers. They lost its purpose after Japan lost its main carrier force, so Zero started to be useless with its light structure and armor. Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate was the best Japanese fighter, also it was among the best fighters of the war, but people tend to forget about these other fighters due to the fame of Zero.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

Army pilots vastly preferred the Ki-43 to the very good Frank, to the point of trying to cancel Frank deliveries. And reliability or maintenance had nothing to do with this. In right turns the Frank was about like an Allied fighter. Better in left turns but even at 17 second left rotations the Ki-43 was 12! Turning broke diving attacks so easily a hit and run kill had to be made on an unaware target at point blank range...

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

As far as I'm concerned this 5:07 seals the deal. Mitsubishi managed to exceed requirements that Nakajima thought were impossible to meet and beat them to the chase for about a year. Late Edit: That said props to Nakajima and the IJAAF for adding protection measures to their Ki-te (heh) almost a year and half before the IJN did with the Zero.

[@trent847]

Between the two more Allied aircraft were shot down with the Oscar rather than the Zero.

[@destructionandregeneration]

The ki-43 was loved by Japanese aces they said it had better Armour and the fuel tank and critical parts were well armoured

[@honkhonkler7732]

The Ki-43 was not well armored by any means until later in the war but it didn't really matter by that point.

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

@@honkhonkler7732 The Ki-43-II already had armor and self-sealing tanks (though the first versions were kinda bad), entered service during autumn 1942 and was by far the most mass produced version of the plane. While it was still to little and the plane would start to become obsolete by that point I wouldn't definite as "didn't really matter". The A6M Zero which didn't start getting armor until mid 1944 is a mcuh better example of this.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

Absolutely. It was more maneuverable and had 13 mm of back armour to the P-47's 8 mm... Not as tough as a P-47 of course, but far superior to the Zero except on the odd occasion that a Zero's slow rate of fire, so mediocre damage, had the heavy shell hit the wing spar, which often broke it.

[@brealistic3542]

People don't realise this but Japanese fighters gave the British spitfire and Hurricane pilots fits.😁

[@kylepeek5069]

Both the Zero and ki 43 had very similar performance and use they were specifically fighters the ki 43 was slightly faster and more manovrable than the a6m2 zero due to having a much faster role rate and less weight in the wings while the zero had better fire power with its 2 20mm cannons and 7.7mm MGs while later variants like the a6m5 a6m6 and a6m7 variants would have 13mm MGs while the ki 43 2 variant would only have 2 12.7mm MGs however there was a ki 43 3 variant which had 2 20mm in the nose.

[@FeiHuWarhawk]

The Zero had a 1150hp 2 stage SC engine, 13mm in nose and 20mm more ammo, longer barrel and better hitting power.

[@TiptonBros]

Appreciate the comment my man!

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Wrong. Two speed supercharging is very different from 2 stage.

[@conservativemike3768]

I always wanted a stripped-down Ki-43 II for casual sport flying.

[@TiptonBros]

Talk about the coolest thing ever, would have been very neat. Appreciate the comment.

[@conservativemike3768]

@Myron Bennett / Standard stuff. Without guns, ammo, hard points, and with the traditional cockpit swapped out for glass I figure a savings of at least 650 lbs. Re-bore engine sleeves, add modern pistons, engineer bearings with some modern materials and fluids… would improve reliability and performance significantly, necessitating reinforcement of the wing spar, redesign of ailerons, and an improved tail to handle greater speeds overall. Of course, need an improved centerline tank for luggage, golf clubs, dive gear, etc. I’ll call Bill Gates or Bezos…

[@conservativemike3768]

@Myron Bennett / Nothing a bit o trim adjustment, duct tape, and bailing wire can’t handle…

[@conservativemike3768]

@Myron Bennett / A nice, well balanced turboprop.

[@icewaterslim7260]

@Myron Bennett Not. The Nakajima Sakai 21 was developed from earlier single row engines that had used features found in Bristol Jupiter and Wasp designs. Nakajima did build Jupiters under license but the Sakai nor any other Nakajima motor was not an exact copy. .The Homare was the motor for the Ki84, N1K1-J and N1K2-J

[@scootergeorge7089]

The one that Sakai was flying!

[@tommygun333]

An interesting video. Give a like and sub. But one comment. The 20mm guns of a Zero were not that useful. They had smaller rounds than other similar cannons and very few rounds. I'd personally prefer .50 cals with more ammo. Wish you luck in developing your channel. Great potential.

[@TiptonBros]

Appreciate the support! Interesting, I’ll have to look into that. I’m going to remake the video in the near future as it’s plastered with errors and I’ll try to mention this. Thanks for the like and sub.

[@tommygun333]

@@TiptonBros I've heard that yesterday in Military Aviation History video about Zero and probably a long time ago as well. I didn't notice any errors;) Keep up good work.

[@TiptonBros]

@@tommygun333 thank you, it means a lot.

[@icewaterslim7260]

IJN ace Honda Minoru envied our .50 cals and Horsepower. He said the Type 99 round: "dropped like a stream of piss". He claimed to be the worst shot of his training group. So he would close to within under 50 meters and sweep across his target with the cannon fire, in a bit of a roll, to avoid debris. But once in close the big low velocity round would take any fighter air-frame apart with that short burst. Only two of his kills were after '43 and probably in the NiK2-J while with the 343rd Kokutai. The rest were in a Zeke. The Oscar actually had the bigger score but i don't know if that's simply their claims or our by verification. Ki43 were often mistakenly identified as A6Ms by allied pilots that probably were more often fighting over IJ Army turf.

[@honkhonkler7732]

The A6M and it isn't even close. Both were poorly armored but the Ki-43 had pathetically poor armament until the final variant and was slower. The initial version of the Ki-43 also had poor structural integrity in the wings (often falsely attributed to the Zero). These issues were eventually rectified, some of them too late, but each of these modifications also added substantial weight. The A6M just made significantly better design tradeoffs from the beginning when it mattered.

[@pajodato5339]

The Zero was superior to the Ki43, but both were great aerobatic capabilities and were deadly in the right hands. The military problem is the pilot, not its machine per se. By that time the japanese airpower was utterly destroyed over Phillipines, Tommy McGuire and 3 others flew their powerful P38s, but the american ace was downed by a lone and aggressive japanese Ace flying an supposedly obsolete Ki43.

[@icewaterslim7260]

McGuire and Bong both flew escort duty for the 90th squadron 3rd Bomb Group's parafrag missions against IJA Airfields for which my dad was an A20 gunner for. An appreciated group those P38 escorts were. I don't even think Bong had to fly those missions by the time they were in the Philippines but he did anyway. Someone once said half the shoot-downs on either side was someone sneaking on your 6 oclock but I think McGuire was focused on another fight in busy airspace when he flew into someone's sights. Some of the IJ Army guys had their combat time in Burma or China and they had earned their scores..Odds aren't necessarily lucky for everyone involved.

[@markforster6457]

I believe McGuire, and fellow ace Hans Rittmeyer, were shot down while leading two new pilots on a mission, to "break them in".

[@pajodato5339]

@@markforster6457 That may be the case, and true, as a way to iron and sharp a couple of companion rookie P38 pilots. But also several accounts state they were "in the hunt for glory" on a impromptu long range patrol mission. In other words, several parties describes them trying to get air victories to surpass a record set by Dick Bong (the top american ace at the time, with 40 enemy aircrafts destroyed). In any case, McGuire did crash his P38 after stalling at extremely low hight and died instantaneously or succumb from his injuries (local accounts vary, and may describe any of the fellow american aviators). Some accounts says they were surprised by a single Oscar who got a "manouver kill" (surprising or scaring them off until they crash). Other account claim they confunsed the plane by a near obsolete Ki-43 Oscar, when in fact it was a similar but far more deadlier Ki-84 Frank, planes who could be easily confused at some distance as those share similar design lines. Other account stated both japanese planes were on the air, one of them was a nimble and obsolete type 97 Nate or early Oscar used at the time as a liason plane, and the other an Oscar Otsu (the latest version of the Ki-43), who surprised McGuire. In this scenario, he stalled and crashed because he was not able or willing to drop his auxiliary fuel tanks, required for the return leg of his long range patrol. This may be the compound cause of his crash, in the same instant he was trying to avoid or perhaps even counterattack. Most of the accounts cite the basics: a japanese fighter was present or got a kill on at least one of the P38, who later was described as McGuire's.

[@keithstudly6071]

A serious problem for the Navy pilots was the loss of skilled pilots. The Ki-43 had more features to protect the pilot and that leads me to wonder if the Army did better in pilot attrition. Was the lack of protection in the A6M a part of the failure of the navies airpower? I think your life might be longer in the Ki-43.

[@TiptonBros]

I would assume the attrition rate for pilots in the navy was just as poor if not worse. But I could be wrong, it’s and interesting question. Appreciate the comment!

[@paulsteaven]

It depends on the context tho, IJA pilots mainly stayed near Japan while IJN pilots were constantly fighting evenly matched or more capable American aircrafts. But when the IJA pilots were deployed in the Guadalcanal, they performed poorly compared to their IJN counterparts against American pilots.

[@icewaterslim7260]

@@TiptonBros By the time of the Battle of Santa Cruz our carrier group antiaircraft volleys were just murderous enough to decimate what was left of Japan's carrier air-groups after the attrition of Guadalcanal. We got to choose our fight after Midway and attrition was a war that simply hurt them worse than us. IJA Airgroups operating in China probably had the better deal as the IJA did a half assed job of setting up airfields in the South Pacific where they really didn't prefer to be anyway. Parafrag B25 and A20 attack groups with P38 escorts often had their way with the IJA in the South Pacific and Indochina where any early warning networks usually failed to duplicate our efforts in that regard. By that time our fighter escorts had their tactics right and equipment to use them all the better with. Of course the IJA didn't trust the Navy to supply them so the Army had it's own transport and supply fleet which was too lightly armed for mass skip bombing operations by allies in.Bristol Beaufighters, A20s, A26s and B25s. Supply was always precarious for either side caught behind the curve in the Pacific and that would be the IJA including their Air-groups after Guadalcanal was lost to them.

[@VersusARCH]

Not even a contest. Zero had better range, better speed and better armament and was carrier capable. All Ki-43 had going for it was better protection and (even) better maneuverability.

[@TiptonBros]

I would agree completely. Appreciate the comment!

[@hertzair1186]

Both had the same philosophy …light weight for maneuverability at all cost…including pilot, engine, and fuel protection (improved later)…and in the case of the KI-43, light armament. It’s two .50 machine guns…. very weak against Allied armored fighters.

[@theblytonian3906]

Define "superior" contextually.

[@TiptonBros]

It’s merely an interesting title. Superiority depends on circumstance.

[@jennyfury4674]

The Zero SLAMS it has a better armament it’s faster it can turn better if the zero ever had a dogfight with the Oscar, the zero would tear it apart with it’s 20mm cannons

[@ivan5595]

Zero is thicc whereas ki43 is more agile

[@sule.A]

I think zero has more than 925hp more like 1130hp

[@TiptonBros]

For some reason I couldn’t find consistent numbers for the A6M5. You are more than likely correct. We appreciate the comment.

[@VersusARCH]

"Zero" came in many different variants. Early war A6M2 had engine rated below 1000 hp. Late war A6M5 had 1130 hp.

[@markandoyo2204]

Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Allied codename "Oscar" were having the dogfight edge over the entire Japanese planes However the Power Flaps were same time dubbed by them "butterfly flaps" making the Oscar a formidable fighting legend

[@AnhNguyen-gb6iv]

but ki 43 is a nightmare to USA,USSR and UK in WW2 and i think ki 43 is best

[@TiptonBros]

The Ki 43 was fantastic! It may very well be superior to the zero in many aspects.

[@lorenzogiuliani9144]

Zero more speed better armament

[@themonolithian]

Ki43 is prettier

[@TiptonBros]

I’d agree, the Ki-43 has more character.

[@kitsune3752]

It depends on preference, I personally prefer the a6m2's design.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The Zero has the vertical stabiliser and rudder significantly aft of the horizontal stabiliser and has no rudder area below the horizontal stabiliser, both make spin recovery much more difficult. The Ki-43 would be safer to throw about nearer to the edge of controllability. Speed would be more important though.

[@anabukis.9528]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXukhqF9bLN0kLM