The BEST fighter at the start of WW2

[@greggross8856]

At the start of the Pacific war, the A6M had one other advantage -- highly trained, skilled and experienced pilots. Add that to the aircraft's design strengths and the Zero was a definite problem. But the Japanese rotated few of their pilots home to train new ones. Instead, most stayed in combat til they died. Attrition did as much to degrade the performance of the Zero as Allied changes in air tactics.

[@holgernarrog962]

The Japanese had not enough fuel for a pilot training program close to that performed by the Allieds.

[@IraZimmer]

Another issue the “Zero” was created for performance, not durability. The pilots were not protected like ours were with extra thickness steel surrounding them They also didn’t have self-sealing fuel tanks. They exploded quite well when hit! So, America had also figured out, the premium asset of an aircraft was the pilot! Took years to produce one and longer to become proficient at his craft. We knew we could build planes on the assembly lines in days, so PILOTS were the most coveted asset!

[@oceanhome2023]

So true Mega upvotes !!

[@LordBloodraven]

@@holgernarrog962 Especially when Chinese and Western allies began running interference with oil shipments back to the Japanese islands. The later innovations like the F6 Hellcat had another advantage. A6M pilots would mistaken the Hellcats for the older F4 Wildcats, leading to them grossly underestimating the capabilities of the Allied pilots during those critical engagements. It allowed Robert Duncan to shoot down Japanese Ace Toshiyuki Sueda, who thought he was flying against the under-powered F4.

[@holgernarrog962]

@@LordBloodraven High octane gasolene was always short at the Axis and even worse in Japan. The Japanese struggled to make high octane gasolene out of the oil in Indonesia.

[@ericoberlies7537]

My dad was an anti-aircraft machine gunner in the Pacific. He told me that Zeros were difficult to hit, but if you got a piece of one they were done for.

[@user-xv9oz4re8f]

I've never come across anyone who was AA in that Pacific, no one has ever told their story. Anyone who can hold their nerve like those guys had balls the size of church bells

[@ericoberlies7537]

@ My son wears Dad’s old AA round patch on his jacket, along with another one of Dad’s plus a couple of mine.

[@benwinter2420]

Curious thing came across in research of dog fights top end Oz ww2 , the Japanese always worked as a team fighting allied fighters they singled out . . the allied side in scraps all went their own individual way lone ranger & disadvantaged themselves no real tactics

[@edhenderson1655]

The designers of the Japanese Zero fighter sacrificed armor, pilot protection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and some other things when designing it, all to lighten the aircraft and increase its speed and maneuverability and the Zero's defense was solely in it's speed and maneuverability because it was incredibly fast and equally maneuverable, and in 1941 and 1942, it simply outclassed by far everything else in the sky in those two areas, but if you could manage to hit them almost anywhere, they were simply done for. In late 1942 and going into 1943, newly designed Allied fighter aircraft began to join the war, and it was the beginning of the end for the Japanese Zero. Edited for spelling

[@wabbles2006]

@@ericoberlies7537 Right. They basically were made of wood. Not even the pilot sat in a metal seat that could stop bullets.

[@toddmoss1689]

The combat radius of the A6M2 fighter was staggering in comparison to contemporary allied fighter aircraft, but at a cost in survivability.

[@mrsilbo6499]

It didn't have a self-sealing fuel tank, so used to go down in flames.

[@jlyngdoh5608]

From what I know.. they do have self-sealing fuel tanks... It's just that they're lightly armoured..

[@lucas82]

That's not the reason their went down in flames. They went down in flames because they lacked armour protection. A self sealing tank does not prevent your aircraft from getting blown to pieces, it just helps to stop leaking fuel with moderate damage to the aircrafts fuel tanks.

[@johnpeek827]

My dad served aboard the U.S.S. New Jersey BB62 during WWII at the age of 17. He was a 20mm Gunners Mate in the 8th Division. The Japanese Zero was a formidable aircraft that was riddled with vulnerabilities that the Allies quickly caught on to. The Zero's fuel tanks were unprotected and easily set aflame with the use of magnesium tipped .50 caliber machine gun rounds. It was the finest fighter at the onset of WWII. Our Brewster Buffaloes and P40 Warhawks were ancient in design compared to Japan's Zeros. But America's resourcefulness and her "Git'er Done" tenets eventually gave us HellCats, Avengers, F4U Corsairs, SBD Dauntless Dive Bombers, P51 Mustangs, P47 Wildcats, and P38 Lightnings. Rosie must have been working overtime, producing the best aircraft in the ETO & PTO had ever seen. Many of these boys were just out of high school ! I wonder how we'd stack up in today's world.

[@robertmartin9677]

The Zero was the First Fighter was the First Naval Plane that was Bettwr than the Land Base Planes.It was Japanese and the American and British did not believe that a Non White Nation could build and Fight in such a Outstanding Plane!!!

[@vk2ig]

@@robertmartin9677 It's like the British thinking the "white guns" of Singapore would prevent it falling to the Japanese. Did they get a shock!

[@vk2ig]

The Zero could fly faster in level flight than the Buffalo could safely in a dive.

[@brianjob3018]

It's P-47 Thunderbolt and F4F Wildcat, the Wildcat, IYO, presumably not belonging on your list but definitely the F6F Hellcat.

[@richardbennett1856]

Excellent stuff. As we found out, new US fighter aircraft were superior to the late 1930s fighters like the Rolf and Zero. But you did say the onset. Changes to US deployment, tactics, and carrier load outs in addition to many Coral Sea and Midway veterans training the next generation of pilots, many getting F6F and F4U airframes instead of early fighters.

[@joseph-sj7do]

Also it has no Armour for it's Pilot, Fuel Tanks, Self Sealing Fuel Tanks , Engine, so when it was hit it invariably burst into flames , lack of weight made it what it was but later in war it was exposed

[@brianmacadam4793]

The Zero had some very important "positives" but also some VERY important "negatives", very poor in a dive, very VERY lightly built; crucially NO self sealing fuel tanks, very light defensive armament to protect the pilot or the power plant. Once understood the Zero was handled by the allies

[@bernardausterberry9795]

@@brianmacadam4793 Very thin skinned without any pilot or fuel protection. Somewhat disposable.

[@benwinter2420]

There is remains of one in Darwins aviation museum NT Oz , shot down near Darwin in a dogfight , just an engine basically surrounded by crumpled thin aluminium

[@Krusty_T]

@@brianmacadam4793 A6M6 had self sealing fuel tanks I believe

[@brianmacadam4793]

@@Krusty_T I think I heard that they had a version with many upgrades. The idea of an extremely light long-range aircraft is really more of a reconnaissance type than as a combat aircraft, the requirement of toughness is important for combat.

[@FlatOutMatt]

Poor maneuverability at high speeds as well, which the Wildcats exploited to escape by out-rolling and out-turning them in a five 👍

[@SteveZee-r8i]

At the beginning of the war, the US Navy’s top fighter plane was the F4F Wildcat. The Zero outmatched the Wildcat in almost every category (speed, range, maneuverability, etc). Around 1941-1942, LCDR John Thatch developed the “Thatch Weave”. In this maneuver, two or more Wildcats would crisscross each other. When a Zero would go after one of the Wildcat (and they almost always did), his wingman would shoot down the Zero. The Wildcat was slower and less agile than the Zero, but it could take a lot of punishment. The Zero couldn’t take any punishment. After only a few bullet hits, the Zero was on fire.

[@grandjedimasterbill]

Yep. The reason the Wildcat was outmatched by the Zero was because the Wildcat had an armored cockpit and self-sealing fuel tanks, which made it far more rugged but also heavier. Later in the war, the US had more powerful planes like the Corsair and Hellcat which could exceed the Zero's performance but still retain the safety of the Wildcat.

[@jefferyroy2566]

​@@grandjedimasterbillTrue, but the Wildcat went to the British as a Lend Lease item, who renamed it the Martlet and used it a primarily a naval fighter. It also served as the primary fighter on most escort carriers in both theaters of action with the Royal and U.S. Navies.

[@philipalcock9867]

I think you are exaggerating the top speed of the Zero. The spitfire and me 109 were faster. It was a highly manoeuvrable dog-fighter and comparatively well armed but once its weaknesses were understood it became vulnerable

[@magnusmcgraw]

@@philipalcock9867 The Zero was not armored or was very poorly armored, and the fuel tanks were a particularly weak point. At the end of the war, it didn't matter how good or superior the technology was. All that mattered was the massive superiority of men and machines. Without the American Lent and Lease Agreement with all the other Allied nations that fought, the war would not have been necessary for the Allies. Russia and the Red Army in particular would not have been able to defeat the Germans. Millions of Russian soldiers and the incredibly massive supply of everything you need in a war by the USA were the reason for the victory... and a whole bunch of other things.

[@Curtissaviation]

@@philipalcock9867 . I agree. The Zero is slower than either the Spitfire or the Bf-109. He probably meant CLIMBED faster, which is true.

[@kitgoostrey6162]

Yes but the only thing that we almost fail to realise here was that there were not spitfire squadrons in the far east in 1942 when the Japanese were at their most dangerous

[@peterrobbins2862]

It would depend upon what model of the 109 or spitfire wouldn't it they both got faster and more powerful as the war went on

[@benwinter2420]

There was one Spitfire (they say two ?) shot down on Stapelton station NT Oz . . had a block there for 13 yrs that was once part of the station . . the Japanese attacked the then Stapelton railway siding (rough 100km south of Darwin) a few times & dog fights then overhead . . the Japanese never discovered the main north Oz arms depot Snake creek just some 15kms away

[@tomtom8889]

When they were able to recover a relatively intact one that crash landed in the Aleutians, that was a real intelligence coup. It was studied and flown extensively.

[@aaronpaul9188]

It was a carrier fighter that could match land based aircraft in combat and had auperb range. The allies didnt think that was possible from a naval aircraft.

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

All at the expense of zero armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks and terrible high seed handling characteristics.

[@Taketimeout3]

It was NOT faster than spitfire or Me109, it out climbed them and out turned them but was basically a sports plane with some guns added. If hit it would fall apart and catch fire. The problem was getting into a firing position.

[@aaronpaul9188]

@@Taketimeout3 I never said it was faster than the spitfire...

[@seanharrigan6365]

The flying Tigers knew how to deal with the Zero. Pappy Boyington learned how to take them out in China. By the time the F4U Corsair was flying the Zero was becoming outclassed.

[@seanharrigan6365]

The P-40 Warhawk was the plane used in China.

[@joeavent5554]

I was under the very strong impression that the AVG dealt with Nippon Army Air Force aircraft vs Naval Air Force fighters such as the A6M. The CBI Theater came under the perview of the Japanese Army.

[@seanharrigan6365]

@joeavent5554 Claire Channeult led the Flying Tigers flying in China. They flew the P-40 Warhawk successfully against the Japanese Zero fighters. It took time for the American aircraft designers to come up with planes to combat the Zero properly. Channeults strategy involved using two fighters in tandem.

[@owensomers8572]

There is no record of the AVG engaging Zeros in the CBI.

[@seanharrigan6365]

@owensomers8572 The Zero fighter was tested and gave pilots experience to be used in the future. Look up the 2nd Sino Japanese war. Both planes were in the same theater of operation.

[@kilroy2517]

And because it was relatively light, the torque from that powerful engine caused their pilots to tend to turn left when being chased. Plus their carburetors didn't work well in a hard dive. If you remember the movie Major League, the character Cerrano was a HR hitting beast, until they discovered he couldn't hit a curve ball. The zero was like that - it was terrifying until we discovered all its weaknesses. Until then, the Thach Weave was a very effective tactic against it.

[@TheScandoman]

It's a wonder that they didn't make the pilots fly literally naked, as, figuratively, they WERE flying naked!

[@PDZ1122]

"..the torque from that powerful engine caused their pilots to tend to turn left when being chased." That is a complete pile on nonsense and has no basis in reality. physics or aerodynamics.

[@feldgraufox4927]

​@@PDZ1122 mine's pointing to the left

[@kilroy2517]

@@PDZ1122 OK, argue with all the sources on the internet. The engine spins on the x-axis, and Newton has a law about equal reaction, so the engine is trying to spin the plane as much as it's trying to spin the propellor. Because the Zero was relatively light, it banked faster to the left (with the motor spin) than to the right (against the motor spin). Lost of "facts" we all think we know are proven wrong eventually, and I'm open to that, but provide evidence.

[@PDZ1122]

@@kilroy2517 All prop driven aircraft have turning tendencies because of prop rotation. Slipstream and precession and all that. All aircraft are designed to easily deal with these forces. The Zero had around 1000hp and these turning tendencies were minimal and no worse than other comparable aircraft, like the Spitfire. It's not like a Sopwith Camel where the spinning rotary engine represented a sizable portion of the aircraft mass. P51 and Corsairs were worse than Zeros in that respect. And yes, I'm a pilot.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

We are talking mainly 1941 here before the Zero was available in any numbers - by that time the ME 109F and Spitfire V were the standard fighters, both of which were MUCH faster than the Zero. The ME 109F-4 was 100 km/h faster, and also much faster in a climb and dive.

[@lllordllloyd]

The Spitfire V was indeed in a service and a great plane, but hoarded in England by the dim light Leigh-Mallory and ther air staff, while the British fought the Japanese with old fighters and pre-war tactics.

[@jorgearmas9310]

I wouldn't call it a miracle. All the performance sacrificed its ability to survive an engagement with an experienced adversary. No armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and light airframe were liabilities in matched combat.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

At time of its introduction only soviet fighters had any armour, no one had self sealing fuel tanks. At wars end the latest version of the zero had more cannon ammo, armour and self sealing fuel tanks. It had an almost 1-1 kill ratio in 1945.

[@vanpenguin22]

Thankfully, their production capacity by then had been so worn down that they weren't putting them out in any substantial numbers, as well as the fact that the talent pool for pilots had mostly been introduced to the great beyond by the pilots of Hellcats and Coesairs, by then

[@thehandoftheking3314]

@vanpenguin22 oh yeah they were smashed. The US subs had strangled them. The Japanese lost more aircraft on the ground than in combat in 45

[@blueeyeswhitedragon9839]

​@thehandoftheking3314 :- By 1944, the Japanese had lost the majority of their experienced pilots, and by 1945 the Japanese had shortened the training of Naval pilots to almost zero. They were sending up untrained and inexperienced men into anything that could fly at least one way to the American carriers. While by this time the Americans had well trained and experienced pilots flying the most modern and deadly aircraft the world had seen up to that point in time.

[@Johnketes54]

Matched combat there wasn't any originally

[@Heres_Johnny_1]

The Zero was originally designated as the Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 carrier fighter, or the Mitsubishi A6M Rei-sen. However, pilots usually referred to it as the Reisen, which means "zero fighter". The Allies code-named it "Zeke".

[@billwilson-es5yn]

Lookheed's Ventura patrol bomber was faster than the Zero. When jumped, their pilots gave it full throttle to leave the Zeros behind trying to catch up.

[@Samlind]

Miracle for about 9 months. By Midway US fliers had figured out they had a much more robust fighter, one that could take punishment, and that dogfighting Zero's was a loser. So get behind, blast away, then dive away because you had a heavier, faster diving plane than they did.

[@robertcottam8824]

Well done ‘Murca! So, given all the big hats and high-volume jangly banjos, how come Murca had lost every war since? 😂

[@benreid7567]

Australian pilots figured out how to successfully engage the zeros. They would bait them into chasing them, pull into a steep dive and pull out sharply. If the zero tried to do the same maneuver it would break behind the cockpit. American pilots nicknamed them the flying gas can on account of how if they got hit the fuel tanks would easily catch fire and burn the plane.

[@FelipeScheuermann1982]

It would break? Thats false, tests performed in captured zeros by US Navy shown that it handled more G's than its allied counterparts. The 2 tatics allies mostly used prior to having planes faster than zeros was, flee in a steep dive (where allied planes, being heavier, got more speed) or fight in "carousel" style, with pairs of allied fighters covering each other, where the japanese planes, having no armor, had a strong disavantadge. Keep in mind that its twin 20mm cannons could wreak havoc even on the well protected american planes, so it was a risky tatic. As risky as frontal attacks, another tatic used...

[@benreid7567]

@FelipeScheuermann1982 I remember watching a lot of ww2 documentaries with my father when I was young and this was the comment made by an Australian pilot fighting the Japanese out of Rubal in Papua New Guinea.

[@benwinter2420]

In dogfights over NT Oz . . the Australian pilots initial went their own way in fights & did't coordinate with others as in no trained tactics to fight as a group , perhaps they had some theory but it all seemed to go out the window when shit hit the fan . . the Japanese trained to gang up on single aircraft & won most fights then . . lots swept under the rug since

[@lw3918]

It had no armor and couldn't take any damage. The only thing it excelled at was turning.

[@davidtuttle7556]

And rate of climb.

[@lw3918]

@davidtuttle7556 Because it had no armor.

[@FelipeScheuermann1982]

Turning, speed, climb rate, ceiling, range, it had cannons... at the cost of absolutelly no protection apart a single thin armored plate behind the pilot seat. It was like flying a lighter😂 a nimble and well armed lighter but still... a spark and it was a flaming trap for its pilot

[@sblack48]

And the japanese navy pilots at the beginning of the war were very well trained

[@SmokinLoon5150]

Few things were more maneuverable or forgiving as a A6Mx "Zeke"... the Ki43 "Oscar" was one of them (older, slower, but turned even tighter and it was even easier to fly). The Allies defeated it by being faster, staying fast, and using better tactics. It is as simple as that. Even when the F6F arrived the key was not to turn hard, usually in the form of two 90° turns in the same maneuver, and stay fast. The Zeke clammed up at 250 TAS where as all of the US fighters, both USAF and Navy, could go at least to 400 TAS before they stiffened up (the P47 even higher). In a pinch the US fighters would dive away, get to higher speeds and extend out. Reset. The Zeke was also fragile, it couldn't take near the damage of the Allied aircraft including the Spitfires.

[@johnstirling6597]

There is a WW2 Zero at the Auckland Museum in New Zealand.

[@nickbrough8335]

I have never seen a data source that indicates the initial zero model could outperform tje Me109e or Spitfire. It has Hurricane level top speed c 330 mph from what I’ve read.

[@kingaxline3086]

Because it didn't, it was just a one trick pony due to its lightweight sleek wooden airframe. It could outturn and maneuver better than any competition... But once pilots learned to keep speed / energy over a zero they were completely outclassed. It's a big reason why the f6f hellcat has a theoretical 19:1 kill count. It doesn't matter how well you can turn, roll and climb if your facing against planes that can fly 2-300 kmh faster than you at cruising speed

[@BatteringRam571]

@@nickbrough8335 that’s what I’ve heard too

[@nickbrough8335]

@ and that seems to have been achieved by sacrificing armour for range. Once western tactics caught up with the zero’s small plane turning circle, zero’s became death traps.

[@roanferguson8873]

That's correct. I would say the A6M may have an advantage in rate of climb and acceleration by virtue of being so light, though. That being said, top speed wasn't it's greatest strength

[@michaelw2288]

​​@@kingaxline3086 The Zero did not have a wooden frame. It wss the first aircraft to use 7075 aluminium alloy which was developed by Sumitomo Metal Industries in 1935. It was the most advanced material of the era, reverse engineered by Alcoa in 1943. In the early years, the Zero had a combat ratio of 12:1.

[@BrianMcCarthy-z9l]

It wasn't just technology that defeated the Zeros. The Americans developed very successful tactics like the Thach Weave and learned from their mistakes. The Japanese were very brave but so were the Americans.

[@SteveSmith-eb6ze]

The American intelligence ignored the early warnings about the zero. They refused to believe that the Japanese had the intelligence to build an aircraft that outperformed their own. The zero dominated the sky until the Hellcat came around.

[@Gerhold102]

So the use of the word 'intelligence' is a misnomer in this case. Max Hastings is invariably objective in his musings and research, but every postwar schoolboy was aware of the Zero's fragility and tendency to catch fire in combat. Also, the use of the word "terror" in speaking of the British and US pilots who engaged in dogfights with Zero pilots is an insult. All go into combat with a measure of trepidation, but they aren't terrified, else they couldn't perform.

[@derin111]

And American arrogance persists to this day! The only difference is that today they have shifted to dismiss the Chinese.

[@davidtwliew616]

​@@derin111some things never changes. Remember pride comes before fall.

[@0maj0hns0n3]

​@@derin111 it wasn't arrogance so much as the Americans had no plan of being at war until December 7th. Then they decided to come up with answers to what other nations were using. The war started with the Americans only having about 150 ships in the entire Pacific. What the Americans were guilty of was not actually looking at the political situation and the actual need to build a military

[@dsan8742]

⁠​⁠@@Gerhold102 Hey, allied pilots were terrified, and still performed. You can be both buddy 😂. Additionally those scathing comments bordering on a bit of western superiority are hilarious. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese did not have adequate resources to match American engine development, their motor industry was far younger and far smaller, hence they went for a design that emphasised on a tactic that got them a near 12:1 KD ratio. Sure the plane didn’t age well but to say this was due to a lack of intelligence is absolute hodge podge

[@tamkin007]

Most RAF pilots had got used to turn fighting against German and Italian fighters. It took sone time to change to the "boom and zoom" tactics

[@opatrick1961]

Its top speed was about 335mph. It was light, maneuverable, climbed fast, and turned tight. Butnit had no armor or self sealing tanks, and light armament. Our planes learned how to, and how not to fight it.

[@e.r.t.583]

If I’m not mistaken. The Japanese purchased a plane from Vought Aircraft Company in 1936 and the Zero was a copy of that American design that the Japanese took and built the Zero using a slightly modified version

[@DylansPen]

During the battle of Midway the Japanese also invaded the Aleutian Islands and a Zero crashed there but was not badly damaged. The U.S. found this Zero and got it flying again and studied it and learned what they needed to learn. The F6F came out about a year later and it ruled the skies.

[@chaz2187]

What was the ‘miracle’ aircraft in the second half of the war, after the Zero became obsolete itself??

[@timmotz2827]

Probably the Hellcat and the Corsair in the Pacific. In Europe I would nominate the Mustang, perhaps the FW-190, perhaps the later versions of the Spitfire. The Me 262 was certainly a paradigm shift, but it didn’t have much impact on the course of the war.

[@johnathanh2660]

​@timmotz2827 Probably the Mosquito, or the Lancaster. The Me262 is a bit of a red herring, as the Pt1s would wait for the fuel to be exhausted and then follow them back to their airfields, then shoot them down. And attack the airfields. The problem is every aircraft had a 'similar' variant, and so if it didn't exist, it would've be developed in that direction. You could talk about the B24s and the battle of the Atlantic.

[@StephenTetlow-qm9of]

The zero was fast and manoeuvrable because it had virtually no armour. It was hard to hit but if it was it was liable to disintegrate.

[@heathstephenson3863]

And I have some history for you. The Zero was not that manuvarable at high speed because all of their control surfaces were controlled by cables and not hydraulic. So the United States 🇺🇸 found out after the captured one intact. So that I'd how the United States ended up beating the Zero. Get a Zero to move at high speed, and it ended up not that manuvarable at all.

[@PDZ1122]

That is total nonsense. No US fighters, or in fact any common fighter or bomber of WW2 had hydraulic controls. They all had cables and pushrods, every one of them.

[@heathstephenson3863]

@PDZ1122 If I were you sport, I would go and do some research on the Zeros. Especially on the very early models.

[@darvindillon8525]

The Japanese Army Air Force had the Ki-43 Hayabusa, which was similar to the Zero in size, shape, flight performance, and fragility against enemy fire. It was even mistaken for the Zero in battle so often that it was jokingly nicknamed "Army Zero"

[@ericgleixner4074]

They didnt use any armor for protecting the pilot or anthing else. Made it lighter and faster. But once we found one and realized it's only defense was it's speed and maneuverability, we knew it would go down with any hit at all. Then we got down to it.

[@StevenBrown-w5b]

The Zero was relatively slow . About 330 mph . The first Spitfires had 365 mph. Final marks were capable of 440 mph . So long as you kept your speed up and didn't attempt to fog fight with it , the Zero should not have posed a problem. However, the first allied aircraft the Zero met were Hurricanes , which had similar top speed , and the Brewster Buffalo which was inferior in every regard and suffered accordingly.

[@johnathanh2660]

Before the Thatch weave the technique used was hit and run. Just dive through and escape. Don't dog fight. Trying to overcome the egos of fighter pilots was the problem. Then a Zero was captured, and the Thatch weave developed.

[@tatters2072]

It was most definitely not faster than the Spitfire or a 109, but it did have outstanding range at the expense of robustness.

[@Hermitmaster]

My favourite KZbin channel! Such interesting little snippets

[@安田繁-s1b]

The designer is a dour genius.

[@Cocodream7]

Growing up, all i heard was about how the P-51 Mustang was the best overall fighter

[@grahammoore-grundy9944]

Does Max work for the IWM now?

[@timothymarshall5410]

@@grahammoore-grundy9944 I believe the IWM invites authors and historians to contribute to the museum, including vlogs, docos etc

[@SlowlySailing-lc1cs]

He forgets to mention that it could turn inside any Allied fighter...very important in 20th century "dogfighting". I have actually spoken to WW2 fighter pilots who confirmed this. If one got on your tail, turning away was not going to work, even just to escape from it, let alone fire at it.

[@jerryb3838]

Sir Maxwell Hastings, all of his books are worth reading.

[@JimCOsd55]

Gen. Claire Chennault figured out how to beat the Zero in 1940 where plane watchers would track the speed and direction of a Japanese bombing sortie. Then have his Flying Tigers P-40 Warhawks at a superior altitude to dive on them with slashing attacks since Zero’s could out climb and out turn a P-40 … but they couldn’t out dive them!

[@barbararice6650]

Fast because it was unarmoured, maneuverable because it was unarmoured, long range because it was unarmoured...but tap tap and it burst into flames because it was unarmoured, once the oh yeah moment was realised it became a turkey shoot 😊

[@chrisazure1624]

It was unarmored. It was not burdened by protective measures for the pilots.

[@Oznog69]

Fortunately, or unfortunately, for the Japanese, they decided to make them out of magnesium, which burns very quickly. If you ever wondered what the metal was inside of an old flash bulb on a camera it was magnesium.

[@richardbennett1856]

Tactics for F-3 and F4F hadn't been implemented for killing Zeros. IJN Kido Butai had an average of 450 flight hours, many in combat already. The US Navy had an average of 220.

[@28704joe]

I read somewhere that it was rare for them to carry radios.

[@zanepaxton7452]

The Zero was an interesting compromise; agility over armor. The west’s industrial might eventually won.

[@robertderoos511]

They had no protection for the pilot or fuel, so if hit, they went down in flames. The P-40 would dive from above in ambush to gain speed to attack the Zeros.

[@mogaman28]

And remember the "advice" of Ben Affleck's character in Pearl Harbor...

[@edgengenbacher9009]

The Cactus Airforce flying Wildcats off of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal more than held their own against the A6M.

[@buckaroobanzai8480]

If I remember correctly.. The miracle was the fuel that they were using... it was Alcohol. seeing that the U.S. cut the oil supply to them, one of the reasons Japan attacked the U.S. So the one thing that they could make is Rice Alcohol. It was discovered by a captured airfield that the fuel depo wasn't destroyed, and someone put 2 n 2 together and figured out the why they could fly faster.

[@deanwoolston4794]

The only drawback of the Zero, was that it would explode, when it was hit, by an enemy aircrafts bullets.

[@nobodyisbest]

Miracle fighter of the first half of the war and a joke of an opponent during the second half.

[@stellarch4986]

The Mitsubishi A6M3 " Zero "... Definitely not a zero so to speak. Dangerous and deadly...

[@chrismaile617]

It was fast and nimble, but didn't have an ounce of armour. After the allies built better fighters, it never had a chance.

[@papabob53johnson46]

At the beginning of the war, the japanese pilots were better that Allied Pilots. From what I remember reading, they were selected at a very young age, 1 out of 100 selected. By the time when the US took aback the Philippines the surviving Japanese Aircraft Carriers did not have the pilots needed.

[@wayned5135]

Zero was designed as a fast, disposable, sneak attack type plane, that could be mass produced , quickly. Hit and run…it served its purpose, for the Japanese.

[@michaelbryant2071]

Sacrificed armor for speed. Easily brought down by later more manuverable Allied aircraft.

[@jimhrn8522]

Small, light, no armor prtection, couldn't take a punch, seems we value our pilots a bit more❤

[@mineown1861]

Performance but at the cost of compromises that the cactus airforce learned to exploit as early as 42 . So its days as the bogeyman of the skies were relatively brief.

[@GaryBonnell-m9q]

They were light and it didn't take much to damage them and when you kill off all your best pilots without training there equals your Fed

[@MontyFinch]

Superb engineering

[@glennoropeza3545]

But when one was found abandoned in a field where a Japanese pilot had flipped over his Zero they picked up the plane and brought it back Stateside to fly it and learn what it can and can't do! They learned that the Mitsubishi A6m was fast and manuverable but couldn't take hits! The plane was an easy prey to the Corsair!

[@IanClements-l5m]

In the first half of the Pacific war it did dominate the skies but when the American aircraft manufacturers got into gear they gave the U.S. navy pilots much better planes . The U.S. lads then proceeded to blow these things out of the sky . As these planes went down the Japanese couldn’t replace the experienced pilots fast enough . My fullest respects to all those US navy pilots who fought through the tough times and went on to rule the Pacific skies

[@wirebrushproductions1001]

The Zero was excellent in a turning dogfight, and had exceptional range. But its strength was not technical. It was "the best fighter in the first half of the war" because of its pilots, who had vast experience and could use the Zero to the limits of its capabilies. Unlike the newly-trained pilots the US was throwing into the war.Then the war continued, and the US aircraft AND pilots kept getting better, and the IJN pilots were getting killed off, with their replacements not in their league.

[@twickersruss]

Built so light could climb and turn on a dime. It was areal shock to the USAAF

[@davidcollins7730]

Wasn't the zero basically stolen from the spitfire, they just souped the engine and stripped out some armor plates.

[@ces4399]

The Zero was to the Pacific theater as the German Panzer was to the Western Theater.

[@rnicholasmartin1335]

When they design that airplane they definitely did not design it to keep the pilot safe because it had no armor. No self-sealing fuel tanks if you knew where to aim the thing would just blow up virtually in mid-air! Essentially the Japanese zero was designed for speed, range, and armament. The skin is so thin in areas of the fuselage that normal hand pressure in the wrong places could buckle & cave in!

[@richardmaxwell3472]

Also devestated Darwin in Australia when we suffered our " pearl harbor".

[@pawcioja1867]

W pierwszej połowie wojny Japonia 😊miała dużo świetne wyszkolonych pilotów...

[@richardjoy6808]

One word "Hellcat"

[@agustinmarquezsegat4725]

Amazing airplane! My favourite

[@USS_Grey_Ghost]

If that was faster than Messershit then so was the F4F because the F4F was only 10 miles an hour slower than zero

[@gordonmckenzie926]

It has little or no armour and once that was realised the allied pilots went to town

[@chrischevalier6107]

Howard Hughes, "Told you so"

[@malcolmtudor8039]

It had no armor. They fed their pilots into a grinder.

[@tonyennis1787]

ehhh, a terror until mid-42, and hopelessly obsolete as soon as the Grumman Hellcat came into service in 43.

[@JohnJ469]

As was discovered around Darwin the Zero was also inferior when pulling out of a dive. Chasing a target to low levels the Kittyhawk could pull up at 600 feet, the Zero could not. Dirt darts.

[@stoneangel777]

Zero was fast and maneuverable but could not take much damage

[@TheSVgregor]

Wasn’t the original design of the zero a Howard Hughes design? the US army air rejected his initial designs and the Japanese bought or licensed them from Howard Hughes

[@michael777e]

What's not talked about much is the zero was designed by Howard Hughes and the U.S. military turned him down so he sold it to Japan

[@perneco123]

And then entered the F6F Hellcat

[@henrikfox8960]

The claim that it took 10 American planes to shoot down one Japanese Zero is a significant exaggeration. In reality, the battle tactics and the sheer number of American planes involved could often result in many American aircraft being lost in trying to shoot down a single Japanese Zero. However, the true context is found in the effectiveness of the American aircraft, especially the Grumman Hellcat, which was responsible for killing more Zeros than any other U.S. aircraft during World War II, and the fact that the Zero's agility and superior early-war design made it a formidable opponent. Over time, better training and tactics enabled the U.S. to overcome the Zero's advantages.

[@paulnutter1713]

You'd think someone like max Hastings would know the spit and 109 were 30 mph faster than the zero

[@stop-the-greed]

Max Hastings ..i have alot of his books ..nemisis and armorgedon are essential reading

[@Tim-the-pilot]

Joe Foss would tell you you’re full of it!

[@JohnMoore-xf5wy]

They lacked pilot's seat armor and self sealing fuel tanks.

[@HeedTheLorax]

Someone misspelled Grumman F4-F Wildcat, the Spitfire and the Me109 couldn't land on an Aircraft carrier.

[@cryhavoc999]

Well the British did develop the Seafire (which was little more than a Spitfire with a tail hook) with over 2,600 made, which served from late 1942 till post war and the Germans did develop a carrier version of the ME109 for the Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier (which was never completed) and 70 Model T ME109s were ordered but most were completed as T2s (basically all the carrier landing equipment deleted) once the Zeppelin carrier was cancelled and those aircraft served with Norway based units into 1941. The Seafire MK III did take part in the last aerial battle of WW2 which saw 1 Seafire lost (its Pilot 'murdered' after Japan surrendered the next day - his murderers later both got a long drop in Hong Kong) and the 7 Seafires involved claimed 8 Zeros shot down and a number damaged.

[@HeedTheLorax]

@cryhavoc999 ,yes all that's true but it was the Wildcat pilots who introduced the supposed super plane pilots to their ancestors. By the time the Hellcat, Corsair, and Seafire were in the mix the best of the Japanese pilots were fish food.

[@HeedTheLorax]

or to put it another way, if you were closing nose to nose guns blazing would you rather be in the Wildcat or the Zero?

[@rotorheadv8]

Allied planes were not completely outclassed. Its armor sucked. When tactics were developed to counter it, the Zero lost its advantages. When planes like the Hellcat and Corsair came along, it was done.

[@drno4837]

at midway the Thatch weave put paid to these glass cannons, and they were not a source of terror at all, just read about Dick bong in his P38

[@DesMen-i9z]

In the Pacific theatre, it was the F6F Hellcat with 19:1 kill ratio. The F4U used mainly by the USMC also enjoyed success and dominance over the Japanese A6M Zero with 11:1 kill ratio. In the European theatre of operation, it was the P-51 Mustang that reigned supreme. It saw limited use in the Pacific which was mainly fought by naval air forces. Furthermore, the Mustangs were introduced late in the war in this area where it was used to escort bombers on deep strikes in Japan

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

What was the point of a comment about aircraft from the entirely last half of the war?

[@anonman3707]

@@WALTERBROADDUS just an armchair expert trying to spew facts and figures to sound smart while ignoring what the real expert is saying in the video. You see it a lot in the comments on this channel

[@heycidskyja4668]

You've completely missed the point - what were Americans flying against the Zero BEFORE the Hellcat?

[@Rotorhead1651]

The A6 was also the brainchild of American aerospace engineers. Known as the Texan, it was rejected for use by the U.S. military, a decision which bit them in the ass.

[@drmurchison]

Chennault tried to tell Washington about the zero, but he was told no aircraft could perform like that. WRONG.!!! But she was a a lightweight going against a heavyweight. One or two hits and she was finished. The problem was TO HIT HER.!!!!!

[@milt6208]

Fast planes but no sealing gas tanks or any defensive barriers.

[@philbarber9738]

"Flying Origami" made out of paper.

[@vinnielalumia]

Nobody except maybe the Brit’s were worried about the zero. Yes it was fast blah blah blah. It was basically a paper airplane