"Destroying the Legend of the Zero" Topic

At the start of World War II, Japan's Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter was the most vaunted and feared weapon in the enemy arsenal. Lightweight and maneuverable, the Zero was able to outfly and outshoot every aircraft the Allies were flying in the early 1940s…

Military: link

The myth that the F6F Hellcat was designed in response to the evaluation of Koga's Zero just won't die. The Hellcat was actually in design before the war, and the prototypes were flying before Koga's Zero was repaired. What Koga's Zero did reveal were the Zero's weaknesses, which led to the development of improved tactics.

That article massively overstates the case.

Jimmy Thach & Butch O'Hare figured out the Zero pretty early on and the USN and USMC fought the Zero to a draw in the Solomons.

Also the F6-F first flew on 26 June 1942. Grumman started design work on the Hellcat in 1938 and the USN signed the contract for the fighter in June of 41.

To paraphrase Wade McKluskey in the recent "Midway, "It's men like Dick Best, Jimmy Thatch and Butch O'Hare that will win this war."

Shouldn't the quote be `that the allies had in the Car East`?

The Zero was a very maneuverable and great aircraft, though a very fragile one too, especially when hit by enemy fire.

Like British WWII bombers, they were very prone to catching fire when hit by enemy bullets.

You know, if the Germans and Japanese were better allies one might wonder what the effect of a few squadrons of Zeroes – with that long dwell time carrier-borne fighters had – might have had in the Battle of Britain

I attended a symposium that included Jeff DeBlanc (Ace in a day on his first mission and shot down) and Jim Swett. Both Marine Wildcat pilots on Guadalcanal and awarded the MOH and some Hellcat and Corsair Aces. When asked what was the best plane in WWII they all replied it's not the plane, it's the pilot.

There supposedly was a US Navy pilot of an SBD that shot down three Zeros in one engagement. They made him a Hellcat pilot.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, that is a true story. Here are some links that talk about him. It is quite the story.

link

link

link

Bashytubits,
That's what I had been looking for.

After DeBlanc was shot down (a Zero gotten on his six blind spot) he was picked up by the local natives. The natives sent a messenger to the Marines stating they had a Marine pilot and would trade him for 10 pounds of rice. DeBlanc was delivered later in the day in a canoe and the rice was was handed over to the natives.

Wolfhag

" At the start of World War II, Japan's Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter was the most vaunted and feared weapon in the enemy arsenal. Lightweight and maneuverable, the Zero was able to outfly and outshoot every aircraft the Allies were flying in the early 1940s… "

Nothing here that anyone familiar with the times and circumstances does not know . . . a retread of information . . most of which of the pop-history mis-information variety.

The A6M2 was designed to bring the Chinese Air force to its knees. It was never designed to face its contemporary enemy fighters. Thus it did well against the Chinese and against 1940-1941 fighters and others caught on the ground . . . and, be sure, most of the A6M's successes in those early days were against parked aircraft.

From the first day it faced USN fighter pilots in the F4F at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and later the Guadalcanal Campaign, and up unto the entrance of the F6F (which as as been noted above, the development of which had nothing to do with any evaluation of any A6M) and the F4U, it was just a long and continuously and increasingly speedy spiral to oblivion.

My father, a USN ace (including 2 A6M's), flew that A6M2 captured in the Aleutians on, oh, without looking it up in his log book, 5, maybe 6 occasions in his role as Director of VF Training at ComFAirWest from the late summer of 1943 to the fall of 1944. His general reaction was that it was a finely performing aircraft, but somewhat unsubstantial and that he'd prefer something like the F4F or F6F in combat. He had the same opinion of the A6M5, an example brought back from Saipan which he also flew.

Journalists should not try to write of history.

Like British WWII bombers, they were very prone to catching fire when hit by enemy bullets.

Very silly comment about "British bombers"! Which did you have in mind?

AFAIK British bombers had self-sealing fuel tanks. But then all aircraft were prone to catching fire, some more than others.

Wolfhag

The principal defect of the Zero was not in its aerodynamic design; it was the fact that Japanese industry was unable to produce a reliable aircraft engine capable of putting out more than 1100 hp. By comparison, the power-plant of the Hellcat had an output of about 2000 hp.

You can lift a lot of structural strength, guns, ammunition, armor and safety features on a budget of 1000 surplus hp.

B

The Japanese Raiden had a 1850hp engine and speed of just over 400mph but came way too late in the war.

Wolfhag

William Nicholas Leonard – Rear Admiral, United States Navy

Designated Naval Aviator #6953 in 1940, Bill Leonard was a fighter pilot who became an ace early in World War II during the battles of Coral Sea and Midway and on Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands campaign.

Captain Leonard was a leader in Naval Aviation throughout his career. He was in the first pilot class at Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent, MD, flying more that 20 different aircraft. He qualifed as a jet pilot in 1946 and was appointed Commanding Officer of VF-17A, later VF-171, the first jet squadron to qualify on carriers. He lead the team that developed the requirements for the Navy's A-6 Intruder.

His other operational commands included Air Group 17, Air Development Squadron Five (VX-5), USS Salamonie (AO-26), USS Ranger (CVA-61), Carrier Division 14 and the Naval Safety Center.

Later in the war, while attached to the staff of Commander Fleet Air, West Coast, he flew the first captured Japanese A6M2-21 Zero fighter and the experimental Ryan XFR-1 Fireball fighter, playing a key role in the training of new fighter pilots and the advancement of Navy fighter doctrine and tactics.

Returning to combat operations, he was on the staff of Task Force 38, Admiral John S. McCain, during the final drive to victory in the Pacific. In all, he flew some 170 combat missions during World War II.

link

Wolfhag

The Japanese Raiden had a 1850hp engine and speed of just over 400mph but came way too late in the war.

Hi Wolfhag,
If my reference source is correct (Francillon), that 1850hp rating was for take-off only and only for one of several different engines mounted in this a/c. The Raiden story is rather complicated as well. Production figures were as follows:

J2M1
Mitsubishi MK4C Kasei 13 fourteen-cylinder radial: 1430hp @ takeoff; 1400hp @ 8860ft; 1260hp @ 20015ft

J2M2, J2M3, J2M3a, J2M6, J2M6a
Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a fourteen-cylinder radial: 1800hp @ takeoff; 1575hp @ 5905ft; 1410hp @ 15750ft

J2M4
Mitsubishi MK4R-C Kasei 23c fourteen-cylinder radial: 1820hp @ takeoff; 1420hp @ 30185ft

J2M5, J2M5a, J2M7, J2M7a
Mitsubishi MK4U-4 Kasei 26a fourteen-cylinder radial: 1820hp @ takeoff; 1510hp @ 9185ft; 1400hp @ 22310ft; 1310hp @ 23295ft

Only about 500 Raidens of all types were produced.

Performance (maximum speed)
J2M1 – 359mph @ 19685ft (3 built – prototypes))
J2M2 – 371mpf @ 17880ft (155 built)
J2M3 – 365mpf @ 17390ft (281 built)
J2M4 – 362mpf @ 30185ft (2 built – prototypes)
J2M5 – 382mpf @ 22310ft (34 built)

The above (bracketed) production figures represent the output of Mitsubishi. An additional unknown number of J2M5s were built by Koza Naval Arsenal. And they weere not altogether reliable.

What I was driving at was that the Japanese fighters produced in real volume during the war – Ki43 Hayabusa (~5900 built); A6M Zero (~10,000 built) – had engines of very low hp output (1000-1100hp) compared to their American competitors.

A run of the mill Hellcat in 1943 was powered by a very reliable P&W radial rated at 2000hp. Ditto for the Corsair. The twin-engine P38 could call on about 3000hp.

FWIW.

B

Thanks, I didn't have that detail but you are right about their engine potential. There was nothing better than the P&W 2000. The US and Japan had different approaches and philosophies to building aircraft.

Wolfhag

The Japanese lost their best pilots in the first year of the war, many at Midway. There was no longer the luxury of rigorously training the replacements from a system that had been turning out a relative handful of excellent fighter pilots for years. This hastened the decline of the Zeros' effectiveness. Like the Germans, who kept tweaking the 109, it did not much matter if your later versions were modest improvements without good pilots.

I thought the Thatch Weave was considered a major tactical advancement that changed the war against the Zero.

"Thatch" is spelled "Thach", only 1 "t". You'd probably not want someone to misspell your name.

Japanese pilot losses at Midway. while certainly not a drop in the bucket, were nothing compared to their losses in the Solomons. By the end of the north Solomons campaign US pilots were already remarking on the declining skills of the Japanese pilots.