A6M Zero - Legend vs. Reality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2018
- The A6M was a remarkable machine but its early success was not only down to the plane itself.
I received a complimentary copy of John B. Lundstrom's, The First Team from Naval Institute Press for Content Production. You can purchase the book directly from:
The First Team - www.usni.org/store/books/batt...
The First Team (Guadalcanal): www.usni.org/store/books/comb...
⚜ Support My Work ⚜
- You can support my Channel with Patreon: / milavhistory
⚜ Sources ⚜
Bergerud, Fire in the Sky
Bartsch, Doomed at the Start,
Lundstrom, The First Team,
See Disclaimer above
Lundstrom, The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign,
See Disclaimer above
⚜ Music ⚜
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#Zero #JapaneseNavy #A6M
![Kehlani - After Hours [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6qatTTscK4c/mqdefault.jpg)
To help create more of these videos, check out our Patreon: www.patreon.com/Bismarck
Military Aviation History Bismarck i finally found you lol! Why dont you play with Bo anymore?
Our? who are you working with, is it MHV? (BTW great video)
@@MetallikArmata;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; is it;;; is;;;;; is;;; is;; is it ok;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; is;;;;;;;;;;; is;;;;;; is;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; in;;;;; is;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;!
Hey can you PLEASE make a video talking about the ki-84?
Also the Australian 75th Squadron in New Guinea running P40 kitty hawks learnt not to dogfight zero fighters (using hit and run tactics) and were called 'cowards' by General Mcarthur specifically because of avoiding dogfighting zeros. So, its not just about failing to act on intelligence from the flying tigers in China, its an arrogant mindset actively preventing acting on that intelligence.
Wait, so all of my allied teammates in War Thunder are actually McArthur?
@@s.31.l50 Nah, all their planes would still be parked on the runway during the battle if they were all McArthur!
@@mystikmind2005 what do you mean?
@@ryanjonathanmartin3933 Most of McArthurs planes were caught on the ground when the Japanese air force attacked the Philippines.
@@mystikmind2005 ah I see
Before mid-1941, the Japanese fighter pilots were trained with the Chinese and the Soviets as the expected enemies, not the Americans, British, Dutch or Australians. They didn't expect to have to face fighters faster than their own. The Navy Zero pilots were happy, but the poor Army Ki-27 pilots had a tough time in China and Burma against AVG P-40s, since the P-40 had a large speed and firepower advantage over the outdated Ki-27.
Before December 1941, the American fighter pilots (except for the AVG) were trained to fight each other. Pilots in the same squadrons fought each other in mock dogfights, in the same aircraft. With the aircraft being completely identical, only pilot skill mattered. So the American pilots were confused when faced with an enemy fighter with very different characteristics to their own - they had no training experience of fighting an enemy that could turn tighter and climb faster than they could.
Before December 1941, the British and Australian fighter pilots were trained to fight the Luftwaffe. Their tactics were best suited to the Hurricane vs Bf 109E scenario, where the enemy fighter is faster, but can't turn as tightly. So their evasive tactics were all about tight turns. But that was exactly what the Japanese fighters were designed for, and a turn which would have evaded a Bf 109 only kept the Hurricane or Buffalo in the Ki-43's or A6M2's gunsight for even longer. Also the correct evasive tactic of a high speed dive was officially discouraged - 'diving away from the fight' was thought to indicate 'lack of moral fibre' and considered cowardly.
Only the Dutch (and the AVG) were actually trained to fight against Japanese fighters. Unfortunately the ageing Dutch fighters were designed to fight the old A5M Claude, not the A6M Zero, and were technically outclassed as a result.
Similar failures of training would come to into play during the Vietnam War, US aviators failed to train against disparate types, putting them at a disadvantage when facing lighter North Vietnamese aircraft, particularly the MiG-17.
Except the Japanese knew their primary enemy in the Pacific was going to be the US from the 1920's....
As the US knew their primary enemy in the Pacific, at that time, would be the Japanese. In other words, much of what you said is false. Each nation thad their doctrine, just as they do today.
The British and Australian Pilots in the Pacific Theatre were last in line for modern aircraft in 41, there were precious few Hurricanes there, no Spitfires, and the majority of British/Australian aircraft in the Pacific Theatre in 41 were underpowered export Brewster Buffalos.
But that is not really the important thing here, the US built a lot of superb boom and zoom fighters, the problem was NOT the aircraft, but the DOCTRINE.
To put it into perspective, you can have the best men and machines in the world, but if you do not have the right doctrine, or, you cannot change your doctrine fast enough, then you will lose.
In WWII the US started with shit doctrine, but they adapted, its one thing the yanks do really, really well. They LEARNED, just as the British did, through the school of hard knocks. The US has a habit of going into wars unprepared, and learning fast after getting their faces caved in a few times.
Mostly, anyway.
But don't mind me, I am... tipsy.....
The Imperial Japanese Navy (Air Force) regarded the US as the most serious threat since the 1920's. The Imperial Japanese Army (Air Force) regarded the USSR as the most serious threat since the 1920's.
Both the IJNAF and IJAAF were fighting both the Chinese Air Force and Soviet Air Force since 1937 (the Soviet Air Force sent a large contingent of fighters and bombers to help the Chinese, and they remained until 1940.) This is in addition to the separate battles on the Manchurian-Soviet border at Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol in 1938 and 1939, which only involved the IJAAF.
Obviously training for an actual, ongoing war in China would take priority over training for a hypothetical war with the US. Up until 1940-41 anyway, when relations with the US deteriorated badly.
The RAF/RAAF Brewster Buffalo Mk.I wasn't underpowered, just overloaded. The Buffalo was never designed to carry pilot armour, armoured windscreen, self-sealing fuel tanks, a gun camera, or an additional radio.
alganhar1 The doctrine was bad, but they weren't totally unprepared, more like US navy and airforce anticipated for a different type of war. The USA had their own planned offensive agaisnt Japan months prior, known as Joint board plan 355, approved by FDR. It why they strategic bombers stationed in the Pacific to begin with.
MrDgwphotos
Yes, dogfighting was considered unnecessary due to the advent of Air to Air missiles, which would be used against bombers. The USSR fighters were not considered much of a threat as they did not have the range to escort bombers to US soil anyway. In the USN only the shrinking group of F-8 pilots practiced ACM.
Those subtle cherry blossom petal animations.
:)
Would chrysanthemums be sacrilegious?
Basically what I suspected. The A6M was hyper specialized to be an exceptional dogfighter when compared to its early war contemporaries and the pilots had the focused training and combat experience to take advantage of its capabilities. The fighters that it went up against in the early part of the war, while decent/adequate planes themselves, were hampered by an ingrained status quo tactical ideology (which did not play to the designs' strengths against a fighter like the A6M) and pilots that did not have the same level and focus of training/experience as the Japanese pilots. Things flipped against the A6M when the training for US Airmen improved in quality along side improvements in design and tactics while the Japanese ended up with a semi-entrenched tactical ideology and a loss in average experience due to losses from attrition.
Corwin Hyatt No problem with Your statement at all but would people stop denigrating a legend!!..The A6M was a fighter built to compromises like all fighters Fact!!.It was highly successful!!.Fact!!..It had to be that good to be any good!!.Fact!!..The Legendary P51 Mustang.The best escort fighter of the war had a nasty twitch if flown incorrectly with it's fuselage long range tank full!.Fact!!.The tank upset the fighter's Centre of gravity and if mishandled could be treacherous!.Fact!!..It did not however stop the P51 breaking the back of the Luftwaffe albeit with help from it's allied fighters! Fact!.
@4vep, The Soviets broke the back of the Luftwaffe. Post 1943 the Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self. Most Luftwaffe aircraft were lost in the Eastern Front to accidents, anti-aircraft fire, ground attacks on airbases, air attacks on airbases, and to swarms of Yak, Lagg, Mig, and P-39 aircraft. The graveyard of the Luftwaffe stretched from Finland to Stalingrad. If you want a cold fact the Soviets used P-39s to knock down ME-262s in the east. One day I might get motivated and go through P-47 kills in Western Europe vs P-39 kills by Soviet pilots in the East. I suspect the P-39s killed more German aircraft than the P-47.
Both A6M and the P51 deserve their status as legendary, but that status was not earned in a vacuum. It is a result of the aircrafts' design, pilot skill and theater conditions. Had the A6M been issued to pilots who had similar training to early war US pilots or had been put into use later in the war after the Allies had adjusted their tactics (though this ends up being a rabbit hole of what ifs) it likely might have had a lesser reputation, just a the P51 would have if Germany had better managed its resources and had easier access to the materials they needed for their more advanced designs.
Easy Eight What I refer to is the airwar from the Dutch/Belgian Coast to Berlin itself.The Soviets were by necessity east of that..They did indeed break the Luftwaffe that end of the East but I am referring to the West.I will make sure I clarify in future!.
Easy Eight, a better statistic might be kill count vs number of planes employed. I get the feeling that if you just look at raw statistics the US won't stand a chance just because the Eastern Front had so much more manpower and machines thrown in it. That said I still kind of expect the P39 to come out on top.
Claire Chenault tried to warn the pentagon about the capabilities of the zero, but they ignored him. They paid the price during the early part of ww2.
I love the artwork. I hope this becomes common in future videos.
Thanks Kyle :)
Wanted to comment the same. Very well done!
Yes please. Beautiful art!
Where/how can I get a wallpaper of the artwork, especially the Japanese fighter pilot? Outstanding work indeed!
Reminds me of a book I read called Samurai. In the book, Saburo Sakai talked about how hard it was to get into the Japaneses Navy's flight program. He also stated how intense the training was. His war started in China, and ends in defense of his homeland.
The IJN was extremely selective in who entered service as their pilots, needlessly weeding out men. Even worse, their program for training additional pilots was nowhere near enough to produce enough pilots for high losses. And as the war dragged on, and fuel becoming a larger problem, training took sharper declines. The reason why the Kamikazes were adopted was because their newer pilots were garbage. They were being set up against the ever growing Allied aviation, with more and more pilots who had ample training at home, ample training and combat experience abroad, and of course, surviving more and more. When you got pilots living longer, they rack up their flight hours, combat experience. It just kept on steamrolling into a bigger and bigger advantage as time went on, while poorly trained Japanese replacement pilots were being fed into the meat grinder.
Also, Saburo Sakai had a commonly held belief as with other veteran Japanese pilots. They utterly detested instructor duty to get those new men the proper training they needed to fight.
So, what did those young, replacement pilots have to deal with? Little time and resources given to train them, instructors that despised them, an ever worsening war situation to be thrown into, and their foes getting more experience and greatly improved airplanes.
This was a terrible scenario to come into. The German Luftwaffe's later war replacements had a terrible time also, but at least they were getting competitive aircraft.
Seriously, the Allied Air Power, which I stress includes the Soviet Union's, had a massive snowball effect of ever growing, ever improving air forces. That train had no brakes and literally ran over the Axis air forces.
Edit: After the veteran core of elite aviators of the IJN were killed off for Guadalcanal and the Solomon Island by 1943, Japanese Carriers were no longer a threat that could be used against the Allies. It took Japan a whole year to gather up enough planes and aviators to restaff Pearl Harbor veterans Shokaku, Zuikaku, as well as brand new carrier, Taiho. Japan would not be confident enough, prepared enough to send carriers out again until mid-1944 to face the Americans for the Battle of the Philippine Sea. But the new pilots were shredded by the veteran Allied pilots, hence the "Marianas Turkey Shoot." That was June 1944. Saipan falls. A few months later in October 1944, the Allies push to get the Philippines back from the Japanese. By this time, Japanese carrier aviation was already gutted by the Turkey Shoot in June, and the carriers only served as a decoy with very few aircraft.
The back of Japanese Naval Aviation was broken in 1942-43 for Guadalcanal and the Solomons. The Turkey Shoot made Japanese Naval Aviation irrelevant for the rest of the war.
Warmaker01 Their extreme selectiveness and elitism (most of the pilots were chosen due to their samurai ancestry) were eventually Japan's downfall, this really meant that they have little, if any, reserve pilots.
Warmaker01
You made all good points. It was about the ridiculous training program that was difficult but wasted time. Pilots entered training at 16, 90% washout rate. Training time was actually increased in 1943, as pilot losses increased. There was no training squadron system in the rear. After graduation, you were assigned an often active sqdn. Furthermore, many commanders were not even pilots and did not understand ramifications of bad orders.
Ugh I forgot the source but I still remember reading that the last test in ijn before pearl harbour is palm reading, yeah your luck and fate are being tested too lol, I still don't believe this tho.
And most of ijn ace pilot are lost in battle of midway, the first and second ijn cardiv has the best pilot, while the fifth cardiv which participate in solomon campaign considered as full with rookie, they even try to land on US carrier in the battle of coral sea iirc lol.
A great book. Unfortunately, no longer in print.
Great video! The Zero was a tiger with a glass jaw. The pilots and tactics were every bit as important as the machines.
Robert Moffitt, Just like hitman Hearns, the Japanese just didn't have the powerful Pratt and Whitney radial engines. They had to get the weight down to get the performance out of the aircraft. You probably already know that It's nice to communicate with others that share the same interest.
Great video. The quality and research outstanding
Cheers!
Great video as usual! Thank you for making these.
Excellent! Very factual and informative. One of the very few truly good you tube videos I've seen.
The quality and content of the scripts is always worth listening to in these vids. Some of the more superficial aircraft documentary videos have good visuals but the words are frustratingly glib and empty. Well done, Military Aviation History.
Was talking about this same thing with my dad the other day. You are absolutely right, awesome video and analysis!
Very informative video, Bismarck. Thank you for sharing.
An excellent, informative presentation!
Great research paper! Well presented (narration and dogfight game play) too!
Damn this is the third video that I can't complain about your conclusions or methodology. We'll done, I bow to you sensei!
Great vid bro
*As always.*
Very well researched and presented.
Great video, all too often we forget about the men behind the machines and the context in which they operated!
Very interesting and informative. Thank you!
Very concise and informative video-thanks!
Very good in depth video
Very informative....thank you for your expertise ....
Great video. Also love the new style
A wonderfully made and informative video as always. An Iron Cross for you.
Iron cross waffles and biscuits, anyone?
An excellent job! Thank you!
I think it's worth bringing up another factor as well. In aviation, context is everything. (If honestly answered, all replies to questions start with "That depends on...") In the case of air combat, the initial conditions are everything. If you're able to enter the fight with a better energy state (Speed and'/or altitude, to simplify), and better situational awareness, you're most likely to win - controlling whether you engage or disengage, dictating the terms of the fight. (Kind of a long-winded introduction, I know, but context is everything) In the case of the 1941-42 Japanese offensives in the Pacific, by and large, the Japanese Navy, and in particular the Zero's pilots, had the tremendous advantage of there being little or nothing in the way of an Early Warning network that could alert the defenses in time to allow the defending fighters time to take off, get their energy up (build up speed, climb to altitude, know where the raiders were coming from so they could position for an attack). The battles of the Philippines and the Netherlands East Indies, and Singapore and Malaysia are marked by the Japanese raiders only being spotted as the clear the horizon of the target, and the defending fighters being caught on the ground or taking off and forming up by Zeros dropping on them like a box of rocks, with the altitude, speed, and position advantage. (Basically, they Allies, and to an extent the Japanese were fighting with a First World War system with Second World War airplanes - the Battle of Britain, compared to the Battle of France, showed the need for a command and control system that could detect the enemy early, determine his intentions, and get defenders in a position to effect an attack - with one exception, those weren't in place in the Pacific in late 1941.)
Consider the case of the Netherlands East Indies' CW-21 Demons. These were lightweight interceptors that, when compared to the A6M2, equalled or exceeded it in performance. In a classical rivet-counting matchup, they should have done well. More power, lighter weight, incredibly maneuverable - able to climb at 5,000'/minute (25 m/sec). Yet they were slaughtered - destroyed on the ground, or picked off as they took off and attempted to climb out - no energy, altitude, or airspeed.
We can contrast this to the experience of the AVG in China - Chennault and his pilots achieved their success by, as you point out, using the energy advantages of their P-40s for hit-and-run tactics. This would not have been possible, however, without the warning network that had been put in place - Chennault and the Chinese had put in place a network of agents and observers that were able to provide notification of a raid, its composition, and tracking its location, giving enough time to scramble the fighters, get them to an altitude advantage, an in position for a successful attack.
As another example, consider Midway - the USN still hadn't evolved it command and control system, but, with its radar equipped ships, central plotting for situational awareness, and good communications, were able to mee the Japanese attacks.
The IJN had no air defense doctrine other than standing patrols and "marching to the sound of the guns" - the fighters were on their own for detection and engagement. This led to their "pack of hounds" behavior - with all the available fighters concentraing on single formations (The torpedo bombers, for example), and not being aware of the approaching dive bombers until it was too late.
I love these videos and they are fun to listen to while working or playing "War Thunder" :)
keep up the amazing work
Good info, well explained.
Good thinking.
I agree.
Great one again!
loved this always eager to learn more about the pacific war
Excellent report and graphics as usual, thank you very much.
May I add the speculation that in1940 just about every German, British and American pilot would have chose the A6M over their own aircraft.
The Germans would have chosen it because it had well over twice the range of the ME-109 which would have been invaluable in escorting bombers.
The Brits would have chosen it because it had the cannons that the RAF pilots kept demanding; when you absolutely, positively have to shoot down a bomber never leave home without your cannons.
Americans would have chosen it because it could turn better than, was faster than and if pursued in a climb it could remain in the climb when American aircraft were forced to fall away.
In any case any 1940s pilot given the chance would have chosen the nimble little fighter because who "sees first" usually wins the engagement and the A6M had a good canopy for viewing, when seconds count, was able to hit hard with cannons, and generally possessed superior maneuverability--that's three out of the Big Four (out numbering the enemy being the fourth). No fighter pilot after all ever thinks they are going to be shot down and want to ride the hottest pony in the corral, even though 80% are in fact shot down by planes they never saw.
One of the reasons the AVG had such a good record, was that crude though it was, they had an early warning system which allowed them to be "on top" to make their diving attacks. Same of course with the RAF over England. In France, in 1940, Brit squadrons were quickly chewed to pieces lacking any early warning of attack.
But now here's a question I've always wondered about but never seen addressed. How important to over all tactical survivability are self sealing fuel tanks and armor plating i.e. they increase survivability when attacked but decay performance? Perhaps without them the extra performance, marginal though it may be, would allow you to avoid being in an existential situation in the first place. What do you think?
great video, thanks
Superb video thanks! Liked and subscribed.
Thanks!
Nice video, glad your using 1946 too, ...I see you have Dark Blue World, with Shinpachi & myself's improved engine skin too :D
Very good work on the video Biz. Wonderful information here. The A6M's have always been my personal favorite of the WWII fighters. I am very happy to see a separate video about them from you! Thanks again and great work! Keep it up!
(P.S. on your next flight out with Bo, could you shoot him down once for me? A little payback from him taking me down in WarThunder a little while back. mwa ha ha. Thanks c; )
Thank you Besmark, i m discivering totally new perspective of WW2
Excellency at it's finest
Very Nice video, Good to know that it was a matter of skill.
Excellent
Il-2 1946 i love that game. Had a lot of good online battles in my Ta-183.
Awesome vídeo !!! 👍👍👍
I remember going to an airshow when i was 8. There was a zero on display that you could touch. Just barely tugging on the wing (think 8 year old strength) made the entire wing bend down about half a foot. I was amazed by how thin the metal must have been. Just poking the bottom of the wing lightly was enough for it to give.
@@mercy4184 It was a restoration, but it flew! Certainly didn't look cheap zipping through the sky
These vids are great.
You should finish this Zero Series with its match up against the F6F and the Corsairs, with the culmination of all the factors you've pointed at in this in your Wildcat video coming to a head. Love the Content, I hope we get to see your insight on the World War 2 Channel soon!
Please make a video about the F6F HELLCATS.
great video!!!!! love it/
Will you be doing videos on the developments that went into further modifications of the zero in the future? Also a quick question for you too, do you find it difficult finding documentation for the Japanese to make videos like this?
PLEASE do a video about the p-40 and the AVG!!
John Wayne's "Flying Tigers" was one of the most influental films for my interest in aviation!
Good video.
Very good video! The AVG and Navy had some success against the zero and other Japanese fights as did the Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal. In much less than perfect circumstances.
Video suggestion: Near the end of WWII, the Japanese Navy launched a sub hunter aircraft carrier employing autogyros {or gyroplanes}, but the carrier was sunk {by a US submarine?} before seeing any real action...?
very nice and educational video as always. You should do a same thing with Ki-43 hayabusa, since it was a very important aircraft that won air superiority for IJA over Malaya an later Sumatra and Java.
Can you make a video of the P-47
Ah IL-2 Forgotten battles and 1946. How I remember you. Shooting down A6Ms with ease in the F6F and with a little more challenge and fun in the FM-2 all you had to do if he was higher was sucker the guy into diving on you get too fast and then out roll him with ease.
Great chanel !!!!!
great annimation
The main problem of the zero is that the plane itself has very little place for any improvement, if at all. Look at Spitfire or F4U, their first prototypes and the last combat variants are totally different kind of monsters. Heck, even the P-47M and N are very different from the P-47C.
The war changes and evolves all the time, the A6M couldn't. That's why it's done for when a single plane could counter it. Same principle could also be applied to the F6F. Yes, F6F could fight the Zero, but at the later stage of the war they couldn't do much against the like of Ki-84 or N1K2. In fact, they couldn't even handle the Kamikaze effectively, that's why the navy replaced them with the F4U-1D or F4U-4.
The Zero was an excellent plane... at only a single point in the time, before getting obsolete by the very next moment, thank to the fact that it couldn't be improved... And if anyone mention the Reppu... That thing was IJN's mass hallucination. A plane the size of the P-47 with over-complicated, unreliable, underpower engine on the carrier deck? So unreal... Even if they could find a better replacement for the engine, they still have to find the way to put that massive plane into the small and cramp hangar of IJN's CV. It's basically unreal.
The IJN should have spent more time with the project like the N1K3/4 rather than daydreaming to the ready-to-fail projects like J2M, A7M or J7W...
Or here's some more examples. Look at the early P-51s(the British Mustang Mk.1) compared to a P-51D. Or the 109A compared to the 109K-4.
Well to be fair J2M wasn't a prototype like the others and it served its interceptor role quite more effectively than others of the same kind, with a below-average reliability as its main flaw. It was a more or less especialized plane that didn't serve in huge numbers, definetly not ready to fail.
You are quite right. The Zero was close to the pinnacle of its designed purpose as a dogfighter when the war began. The subsequent marginal increases in engine power, armament and pilot armor largely served to compromise the original design purpose. Inherently, it never could evolve effectively as did many of its adversaries.
A7M had greatly improved engine power and retained almost all of the maneuverability of the Zero. It was hardly unreal, just a prototype. Look at the evolution of the Tiger or Panther, for example. Even the early Shermans were seriously unreliable. It is just a thing that happens in the early stages of any development. Everything you mention are points that are common in early models of anything.
Then aircraft often faced overheating issues in the early stages.
Ehhhh...no. The F-6F did fine against all but the highest flying Japanese planes, but then the F6F didn't escort the B-29's which is where the high flying Japanese fighters were to be found. And...the F4U did not replace the F6F. If it replaced any plane it was the Helldiver. Generally, Navy pilots flew the Hellcat and Marine pilots flew the Corsair, often in the ground attack role to support the Marines on land.
pacific fighters at the beginning..absolutely a classic
I've been holding it back for so long! 😤😤😤😤
The "Clean Up Trio" FTW!
i swear to god, i am a regular IJNAF and USAAF enjoyer but after watching the movie ,,The wind rises” i couldn’t look at the A6M zero without overcoming emotional feelings and shedding tears
The Zero was maneuverable but very lightly armored
this man deserves more views dammit
nice art style
Bismarck I have a scenario + question:
You fly your HE-111 into the Soviet Union and you’re shot down. What did German airmen do? Did they try to walk back to their front lines or did the try to disrupt the Soviet supply lines? How did their tactics differ from American/British downed airmen?
As a German pilot in the Eastern Front you tried to get back across the lines to German territory. Unlike in the west fighting was close to the front so walking back to German territory was often feasible in a day or two (assuming the airman was relatively uninjured). German POWs were not treated well, roughly a third of all Germans captured by the Soviets died in captivity (althought the official Soviet figures are much lower naturally), so where getting captured in the West was undesirable, getting captured in the East was a matter of life and death, so German crews would try to get back.
fix0the0spade thanks
For a glimpse of what Luftwaffe pilots endured on the eastern front read Stuka pilot by Hans Rudel. He covers how he got back to his side after being shot down.
I remember hearing about many finnish pilots who walked crazy distances after bailing out behind enemy lines. If I recall correctly, it was a finnish pilot who lost his shoes while bailing out (or didnt have time to put them on when scrambling to air) so he had to walk barefoot back to friendlies. His squadron buddies therefore painted a mickey mouse carrying a pair of shoes on his new plane after he got back, just in case he forgot the incident.
G A Pratt Stuka Pilot was an amazing book written by an amazing pilot.
My dad was on the USS Essex and was transferred to the USS Hornet. After 1943 no USN carrier had a totally green flight crew.
There is a long chapter about Buutan in Clostermann''s book "Skies in Fire". It's impressive what the US pilots and ground crew were able to do at that time.
I've read accounts from Japanese pilots also saying that the 7mm machine guns where just about useless. Once you ran out of 20mm you basically had to get right on there tail and just hose the enemy. Also they didn't have self sealing gas tanks on early zeros that way they caught fire so much. Love the videos keep up the good work.
I read once that the 20mm cannon wasn't very good either because its cyclic rate and the velocity of the rounds were just to slow. Japanese pilots wished they could have had the .50 cal machine guns that American fighters had.
The Zero never had self sealing tanks.
later models did @@growlanser5600
@@bclmax Yeah.
I think part of why the A6M has such a legend behind it is partly due to the fact they could not replace it even once it had begun to get outmatched by hellcats, it continued to be the mainstay of the IJN due to it being their only carrier based fighter they could employ for almost the entire war. Even though they had much better designs to the zero, they were either army aircraft (Ki-61 and Ki-84. Ki-84 especially was an extremely good fighter) Or like the J5N which was only made to take off from island runways even though it was a navy plane. The A7M was the only real suitable replacement and for many reasons there was only ten of them made.
Good explanation Chris. Good to finally get away from this myth about equipment. Perhaps the biggest problem for the Japanese, as I understand it, was that so much experience went up in flames at Midway. All these top navy fliers went down with their ships.
As the Red Baron put it: "The quality of the box matters little. Success depends on the man who sits in it."
At least to a certain point
A very interesting read about the Life and some printed statistics of carrier qualifications aboard the newly commissioned USS Hornet, the book "The Ship That Held The Line". Besides the very interesting lifestyle of the sailors aboard the ship, it is very interesting to read about the carrier qualifications and the many aircraft that failed to land safely as well as those who crashed into the water right after takeoff. Sounds very bad but reading further how those pilots of which were many simply were rescued from the water and hopped right into another aircraft for another attempt, most of which were successful. Its a great book.
Early in the war, many pilots carrier qualified on their way out to combat. Training in early 1942 was only 7 months. This is from the book "Dauntless Helldivers" by Dr. Harold L. Buell.
Flimsy construction gave the Zero a high power to weight ratio, however top speed was similar to F4F and P40. At high g forces (or dive) their wings would fall off hence Zero's ailerons were limited above 216 mph. High speed dogfights not a problem for US planes. No armor for pilot or fuel tanks, were vulnerable to US 50 cal guns. Zero had a higher rate of climb (like Me109) and 'could' escape that way. Zero 20mm cannons had slow rate of fire and jammed.
The main reason that the AVG did well against the Japanese Army Air Force is that Chennault was very careful not to allow their planes to be caught on the ground. They had excellent communications with observers, and he would rotate his squadrons around a number of airfields, to the point where they would often take off from one field and land on another. By contrast, McArthur allowed much of his planes to be blown sky-high on the very first day of the Pacific war, and from then on those P-40s that survived were simply outnumbered. The same was true of the British aircraft in Malaya - they weren't so much shot out of the sky as blown apart on the ground.
A few things I read.
First, the designer had a problem with the A6M in that he didn't have that good an engine to work with. So, if he had produced a conventional design he would have had an under powered aircraft that would have been at a disadvantage vs. enemy designs that had better engines. Thus, he chose to make the air frame as light as he could, skip on self sealing fuel tanks and armor. The radio didn't work that well and so a lot of the pilots chose to take it out to save weight - which of course largely eliminated the prospect of tactical coordination.
Second, Japanese pilots were said to have had a great deal of influence over the design of newer aircraft and with their combat experience in China against a lot of maneuverable bi-planes - they wanted highly maneuverable air craft - which were also more fun to fly.
Yes - in 1941 the Japanese Navy had probably the best trained aviators in the world. Put those guys in a highly maneuverable air craft and you had a good combination. The problem was that being fragile fire traps - the weak points in the aircraft's design contributed to the loss of that group of irreplaceable pilots.
The Allies, with sturdier aircraft and better pilot training programs also had more pilots survive combat to become instructors because of the Allies rotation policies. The Japanese tended to just send their pilots out and leave them there until they died. Feeling doomed contributed to poor morale amongst their veteran pilots to the point where commanders tended to try and keep the newer pilots away from them, which of course only worsened the experience loss when they were killed.
Saki probably survived the war because he took a .50 cal slug to the head from the turret on an Avenger the first day at Guadalcanal (IIRC ...) if not for that he probably would have been killed in the ill conceived Japanese Soloman's Air Campaign of 1943. They actually stripped the aircraft and pilots from their remaining carriers and expended them against land targets. These pilots - had they been attacking ships - might have achieved something - whereas their loss accomplished little more than digging a few holes in the ground that the American's quickly filled with dirt and patched with Marston Matting, the damage possibly being repaired before the survivors of the Japanese attack even reached home. Of course - the long distance they had to fly and the fight over hostile territory did nothing to improve the rate of survival of their pilots.
.
The Japanese, like the Germans tended to build the most efficient aircraft they could. I think this is due to the fact that neither country had a domestic supply of oil. If you compare the rate of fuel consumption of the big American radial engine aircraft to the Japanese engines, it is huge. The IJN issued aircraft requirements for the A6M which was considered impossible at the time. It had to be an air superiority fighter, armed with 20mm cannon and had to be able to fly for 8 hrs at max. endurance cruise power. Considering this, Jiro Hirokoshi was a genius to pull it off!
Yes. He did the best he could with what he had to work with.
The IJN had a lot of land based aircraft. The A6M was teamed up with the G4M with the idea that they could operate far out to sea from their, possibly island, airbases - which they did. Both aircraft were given extremely long ranges but the lack of armor or especially self sealing fuel tanks made them extremely vulnerable.
G4M's and G3M's were successful at sinking the Prince of Wales and Repulse - which had no air cover - but attacks a couple of months later against the Lexington which had it's CAP up failed with high losses.
.
Wow the zero firetrap was really that bad? So all those allied pilots in their sturdy superior aircraft that met their maker were just dead unlucky or asleep. LOL.
I recommend the two First Team books to anyone who shows any interest. One of them compared strictly carrier Zero to carrier Wildcat losses,and memory says they were remarkably even. One of the books' strengths (if you like it!) is combining Japanese and American records to document as many individual dogfights as possible, and not relying on claims, but only verified losses. They are fantastic books if you like detail.
I also heard/read somewhere that we discovered an intact zero that had crash landed up in the northern seas near Alaska. Which is one of the reasons we were able to adapt to the Zero as well.
correct..it crash landed and flipped in the swamp breaking the pilots neck...his flight tried to shoot it up but wasnt succesful
Does it matter how bombs are placed in a bomber and how will it affect accuracy (like placing them nose up, nose down, or normally)
Channel name change! Anyway great video
Do you do all of your own artwork? I like it.
Hey Bismarck,
if I am not horribly mistaken you had a couple of lets-play-ish videos on silent hunter. I watched them ages ago and enjoyed them. Sadly I can not seem to find them. Did you delete them? I mean its your content and tbh I subbed for airwar history anyway.
Just wanted to let you know, that those videos were awesome too.
Keep doing what you are doing,
Grüße
decbaa 22 Those videos still exist but they are unlisted.
Military Aviation History
Ah ok. Well I feared I was getting old. ^^
The Zero is indeed my favorite Japanese aircraft from WW2.
I think one thing that also often gets overlooked is in the early war, especially in the early South Pacific and Indian Ocean campaigns. The Japanese Naval Pilots were generally facing what can at best be viewed as remote Garrison squadrons. Often in outdated planes, and who had limited resources such as fuel and ammo to apply to in the field training pre war. The Japanese Best of the Best of the Best were going up against the guys flying hand me downs in the most remote god forsaken postings their services had to offer. This both amped up the Zero's legend, and instilled a bit more confidence in the Japanese pilots than they should have had. Prior to Midway there were very very few instances where Elite Japanese Pilots came up against their opposing and equally well trained and well equipped American Carrier Pilot counterparts. Outside of Coral Sea most encounters were fairly lopsided. Either American Fighters chewing up attacking bombers or vice versus. The Japanese had not really absorbed the lessons of Coral Sea by the time Midway hit them, as the two Carrier Air Groups that had participated were sidelined with little cross communication and training in the short term. At Midway the Japanese Pilots faced a hard realization about halfway through the battle, when after chewing through the assorted waves of Midway land based oddballs they suddenly started getting hit with coordinated well trained Carrier pilots acting in concert. Guadalcanal was the first real extended period where the Upper tier Japanese Pilots and planes faced off, and it was an eye opening experience for even the experienced Japanese pilots, after such an extended period of fairly easy pickings.
The Japanese were smart and minmaxed their planes and pilots.
Mix/maxing is great as long as you can reliably fight in a way that emphasizes your strengths and mitigates your weaknesses. But as soon as the other side figures out how to avoid your strengths and key in on your weaknesses instead, you're in big trouble.
That's essentially what the Thach Weave tactic did. It negated the Zero's superior maneuverability, and exposed how vulnerable it was to damage compared to the Wildcat.
Aye and thats what happened, plus the Japanese were not helped by a far more limited industrial base, next to zero (no pun intended) pilot rotation and an inability to sustain losses. Also they probably stuck with the Zero for too long, and its replacements were far too long in coming along, made worse by the Japanese's material supply issues, limited industrial base, and opposition to change.
More like they put all their eggs in one basket, leaving them with inexperienced replacements and increasingly obsolete hardware when losses inevitably mounted. Pumping up a few elite units at the expense of others is risky at best when permadeath is a factor.
M W hahaha...by flying into things
Minmaxed?
sir do a coverage on J7W1 shinden and why back winged aircrafts no longer exists
One subject almost completely ignored is how different air forces and navies generated combat sorties, but without ready aircraft quickly turned between missions the best aircraft are severely limited. It would make for an interesting video. I can't recall the source but I'd read the Luftwaffe were highly efficient at quick-turning aircraft and some of their methods influenced post-war air forces.
Great video, and thanks for featuring the personnel factor. It gets overlooked far, far too often.
One word for the machine, though: the Ki-43 reaalllly isn't analogous to the A6M. It's an atypical case of a land-based aircraft having weaker armament (2x7.7mm, much later 12.7mm) than a carrier-based contemporary (2x20mm AND 2x7.7mm).
It's not comparable in armament but it is in terms of flight characteristics and design philosophy.
Supposedly Sabro Sakai said he rarely used the 20 mm, and relied more on the 7.7 mm machine guns.
Granted this was only Sakai, and that doesn't mean other Japanese naval pilots didn't use the 20 mm to their full potential.
@@Mike-im5bo He was actually not alone, at least among the Tainan Kokutai's pilots. The unit's mission debriefs and other records indicate that a fair number of the others scored most of their kills with the nose guns, too.
Nice vid. Hey Bismark, I love wearing my Bismark T shirt around here in Clearwater Florida. Are you coming to the USA any time soon? The naval air museum in Pensacola Florida is amazing. Check out the Air Force museum web site for a great virtual tour. Any info on the Spanish civil war? How about the desert war? Thanks
terry grady Glad you enjoy it! America is on the list but it will be a major undertaking that I can not do anytime soon (I think). Probably next year :)
Lots of people generally credit the A6M as the most maneuverable monoplane of WW2 but in fact the Ki-43 was even better in that regard! Better roll rate and turn. However, the Zero had better armament and was faster than the Ki-43.
dogeness speed also played a role. At speeds over 325mph the p40 could actually out turn the zero
At high speed all that matter is how much authority you have over your control surfaces. In that sense almost every aircraft "out-turned" the Zero at high speed. But in a sustained turn where the speeds bleed off to well below corner speed, what matters is things like wingloading, thrust/weight, aspect ratio, Oswald's number - and the Zero and Ki-43 dominated the low-speed turning contest in WW2.
You are leaving out another important element; the airfoil employed. Thicker airfoil designs create more drag than thinner ones but also create more lift for the same wing area and the result is a more nimble aircraft. . This design principle was used in the Fokker D-7 and others.
Scooter George
Yes, what you are referrring to is quantifiable as coefficient of lift, and that is very important, too.
the a6m was simply way too fragile and with two bullets it would turn into fire.
I love this content and I have a question that may be interesting for a new vid.
Why do German Luftwaffe bombs wobble when they fall and Why do Allied bombs fall straight and steady ?
I believe I already know the answer but it is something I've wondered about for a very long time and I know other people probably do as well.
Michael Wittmann german bombs were stored in the plane with its front tip facing up while allied bombs faced forward. i think thats why.
Not a clue how this got any downvotes. Well done
If you want to know what the training was like for Japanese Navy pilots, read Samauri! by Saburo Sakai. The Japanese pilots were superb and an aircraft that could out climb, out maneuver, and even out gun it's opponents was an awesome weapon in the hands of these pilots. Out gun? The Zero carried 2x20mm cannons, 1 per wing, when most fighters of the day carried .30 caliber machine guns. The .50 caliber was a vast improvement but you needed to have 6 of them to make the weight of bullets count in a dogfight.
The A6M was a fine machine, ahead of its time before 1941, but outclassed by newer US fighters after that. As with the training regime of the Japanese pilots, a case of peaking too soon, then being on the back foot without new and more advanced planes or trained pilots to put up a realistic fight. Many other reasons, but the Japanese simply did not have the flexibility in training or ability to design/manufacture better planes as the war with the US went on. Rigidity, either from within or imposed by lack of resources, doomed them.
For what it's worth, I've written about the Zero in the South Pacific. I don't know what kind of assessment "legend vs reality" is supposed to mean. If you want to say that the Zero was not as good as some stunned allied airmen believed while fighting over Java, Luzon or Port Moresby before Midway, then yes. Chennault knew it the information was being circulated. However, the picture is very different if you look at what the Zero was supposed to do. It was a carrier based escort plane that was supposed to be replaced before the end of 1943. (Mitsubishi's top design team was working on what we later called the "Jack" before Pearl Harbor.) If you look at the escort role played by the Zero in the 42 carrier battles, it did extremely well. (Zeros helped escort successful attacks against US CVs at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz. They were shot to ribbons during the "Turkey Shoot" in mid-44.) It performed quite well during Guadalcanal when it was fighting at ranges never dreamed of by the IJNAF. It was not ready to fight the allied fighters that appeared in early 43: the Corsair and P38 (and P47 for a short time) had distinct advantages in every important category and the P-40E/N was more than a match. (Figure a Wildcat vs a Zero in a joust was in the hands of the pilot - but air combat was never - never a joust.) The Zero's big problem was that it was produced by Japanese industry which lacked the depth to create reliable double banked, high horsepower radials or turbo-superchargers. So, sure in mid-43 the Zero was being shot to pieces. But ask yourself this - how well would a Sptifire V have done in 1944 - considering the fact that FW190s were mulching them in 1942, I'd say badly. That was the problem with the Zero. The later Zeros were only slight improvements - nothing like the leap between the Spit I and Spit IX, or the BF109E - 109G6. Above all this illustrated that Japan's goose was cooked when Hitler blew it in Europe. The Zero was as far as the Japanese aviation industry could go and make a reliable plane - hence it and the Oscar were both in production in 1945. It was a great plane in its time and place - 1942: hopelessly outclassed in 1944-45.
Could you please go into how the p-40 could be used to destroy zero's? Its kind of a question that has been plaguing me.
press the trigger on a P40 and fire it's guns at the Zero... or you could throw spitballs at the Zero... What do you think??
The factor that made it most useful was range. From Rabaul to Guadalcanal and back . . . with combat time, was a daily duty of the A6M. If you can't get to the fight you ain't in it.