Bf 109 vs A6M Zero: Which Axis fighter was superior?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2024
- The Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Mitsubishi A6M Zero are remembered as the Axis forces primary fighters in World War 2. Both served from the start of the war until its end. Which was the superior machine?
Please consider supporting this channel raafdocumentar...
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.c... and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history.
Corrections: 13:26 should read .50 cal machine guns (not 'mm'). The aircraft at 19:19 is a Ki-43 Oscar. More on the 109 and its role in Israel in 1948 ruclips.net/video/JKiTy3md2Dw/видео.html
😂50 mm gun was actually mounted on Me 262 A-1a/U4 😂so you are not far off
😀Yes we've a photo of that in ruclips.net/video/AAHskyx6vMk/видео.htmlfeature=shared&t=171
Also 13:29 - Japanese .303 machine guns were more likely somewhat comparable to the _7,92mm_ German MGs, not 20mm... ;)
...or was it the Japanese 20mm cannon that was supposed to be mentioned in contrast to the German ones?
@@royboiiiluo6178 the me 262 had 30mm guns.
ME 109 was built for speed and had armour. A6M was built for range, manouverability and did not have armour. Totally different aircraft for different types of warfare. Put a 109 on an aircraft carrier and see how it copes with a 200 mile flight, then combat, then fly all the way back and land back on the carrier.
Better compare Focke Wulf to Zero!
@@Schlipperschlopper Erm - no. The FW190 was armoured and more strongly built than the lightwieght A6M Zero. The two are no more alike than the Zero and the 109. The fact that both used radial engines has no bearing on it. To the uninformed eye the two fighters might well look quite similar, but in reality they were very different beasts.
@@vipertwenty249 They were created at the same time
@@drazenbicanic3590 What's that got to do with anything? They were designed for different purposes on opposite sides of the world to operate in different environments against different opponents and with different development resources available - especially in engines.
If the Zero had needed to fight the 109 in 1939/40 then the Zero would have dominated due to its combination of speed at that time and manouverability - in 1944 in Europe the 109 would have been dominant - but in 1944 in the Pacific the 109 simply would not have had the range to be effective nor would it have been successful in carrier operations due to its far too narrow undercarriage track for carrier landings - as the British found with the Spitfire but the 109 would have been worse due to its high wing loading and poor low speed handling.
The Zero was capable of outmanouvering even the Spitfire, due to it's even lower wing loading and light wieght, but it lacked the development capability and the more powerful engines to keep up as the war progressed.
The Bf109 better armament better sustained climb rate, higher service ceiling it was no slouch
Comparing stats is interesting, but it's apples and oranges. The Me-109 was an interceptor, the Zero a long-range carrier fighter. Both were inspired designs, but they were built to different requirements, in different countries with different industrial bases.
Exactly (although you could fairly compare the A6M2 Zero to the Messerschmitt Bf 109T-1 (the carrier fighter version of the Bf 109, built for the German carrier Graf Zeppelin). Only 7 were built with full carrier equipment (tail hook, dinghy etc) before the Graf Zeppelin was cancelled. (Another 63 were built as the Bf 109T-2 without the carrier equipment, they were sent to fly from a short, rough airfield in Norway.) Performance was similar to the Bf 109E-4/N which had the same DB 601N engine.
@@timonsolusme109 cannot survive in the Pacific ocean. Grasshoppers cannot be seabirds.. expanding fuel tanks would sacrifice the performance of me109 significantly.
That's what makes it interesting.
If anyone wants a real picture of what this was like, I recommend reading, _'Darwin Spitfires',_ by Anthony Cooper. It was remarkable how ineffective the Spitfires were, in no small part due to spectacular levels of unreliability and wing adherence to the 'big wing' policies of the RAF. The Zeros attacked out of the sun more often than the Spitfires did and the Japanese used much more effective three aircraft formations. They were highly disciplined and gave the Spitfires a very hard time. Ultimately, while it was assumed that there would be no contest, the two types achieved close to parity.
Much has been made of things like dogfighting, turn radius, top speeds and all that other guff but in fact, most combats were decided in the usual way: the victims rarely saw their attackers.
On that basis, I'd say the Zero was every bit as good as the 109 in combat and there's no difference you can put a postage stamp on, much less live on.
@@sushi-love Zero could not cope with the Climate of the ETO either
As German pilots had already adapted to vertical boom and zoom tactics I don't see the Zero really competing with 109 especially with the introduction of the F version. The Germans would have learned quickly to avoid any turn fights and use their superior powerplant to full advantage.
The japanese navy pilots preferred boom and zoom too, the army fighters like the ki-43 were more dogfight oriented in their doctrine, though the ki44 was set up for boom and zoom
The problem there would be that the Zero doesn't dive as well as the 109 meaning it could always evade so yes, you make the b and z attack in any situation you can but the Zero is not the ideal plane for that. @@Colt45hatchback
@@Colt45hatchback All pilots of all fighters prefer to attack an opponent while having an energy advantage, what's more relevant is the capability of the craft to maximize that advantage. Zero's would become hard to control in high speed dives and the weaker structure of the Zero meant that it could even damage itself at high speeds so the energy advantage you can effectively bring to an engagement is limited by the structure of the aircraft.
@@LeCharles07 The fragility of the Zero is overstated. The pilot would fail before the plane did.
航続距離はパイロットスキルやチームワークではカバー出来ません
In my opinion, the Bf-109 had more kills for two main reasons. One, it was the most numerous of all world War II aircraft, so, more planes, more opportunities. And, two, the air combat in Europe was concentrated In a smaller area than the Pacific theater. While the Zeros had exceptional range and agility, they needed that range to simply get to and from the combat area. The Germans were literally in their own back yard. Plus, many of the German victories were against multiple types of aircraft, bombers, fighters in all fronts. Over England, France, Russia, Italy, etc. The Japanese fought over the ocean and over small islands for the most part, not seeing the waves of enemy planes that the Germans encountered daily.
German pilots got easy kills fighting the Russians until modern fighters appeared on the Eastern Front.
still got easier kills
And the Germans slaughtered untold numbers of Russian aircraft. Slaying inferior aircraft and inferior pilots. Same as the F6F did to rack up it's kill count. the most impressive high kill scoring aircraft is thus the P-39Q. A decent aircraft fighting superior pilots and superior aircraft, flown by inferior pilots, and still managed to score high.
Your contention that the Bf-109 was the most numerous WW2 aircraft is disputed. By a quirk of accounting ALL the Bfs are counted as 1 group, but the Yak were not?? If they were, the Yaks would win hands down. Your contention that the area of the AOA is the determining factor is incorrect. You have to consider the number of aircraft from both side involved in the conflict. Fighting in your own backyard doesn't increase kill numbers if only 3 enemy planes turn up!!! In addition the major sea battles of Coral Sea, Midway, Marshall Is, Saipan and Okinawa saw many hundreds of planes turn up. There were 20 US aircraft carriers at Okinawa.
@@csjrogerson2377 excellent points. Roughly 36k-37k Yaks were built in WW2 from the Yak-1, 3, 7, and 9. All of which were improved versions of the Yak-1.
In most of the videos I see on aircraft engines 'octane' comes up as a topic. Basically octane is about ignition temperature, higher octane numbers equate to higher ignition temprtature, meaning the engine could run hotter without preignition detonations robbing power and shaking the engine to pieces. Just for knowing...
Hotter running is not the point of octane numbers. You can feed the engine with more fuel before "detonated-burning". More fuel=more power.
@@estrophy Your equation is, of course, correct. More fuel in the same amount of time is more power. It is also more BTUs (fuel=BTUs) and intake manifold temperature and cylinder temperature increase accordingly. More unburned fuel apparent in carbureted engines carries hear away from the cylinder faster too.
Comparing end of war Messerschmidts to 1940 Zeroes is unfair and confusing. It obscures the fact that in 1940, when the Zero entered service, it was arguably the best fighter in the world. If compared to the Bf-109E from the same era, it had the same or better armament, the same speed (within 10 mph), had twice the range and climbed and turned better. Sakai was right: if the Nazis had had a couple of wings of Zeroes in the Battle of Britain, things could easily have turned out very differently.
And just to be picky, the descriptions of their respective armament are wrong. The problem is both aircraft used various configurations over the course of the war. Again, mixing up 1940 and 1945 models is comparing apples to oranges.
The armament of the Bf-109 changed over the war years, from 4 x 7.92mm; to 2 x 7.92mm & 2 x 20mm; to 2 x 7.92mm & 1 x 15mm; to 2 x 7.92mm & 1 x 20mm (two different types of 20mm); to 2 x 13mm & 1 x 20mm; to 2 x 13mm & 1 x 30mm. Plus the variations with 2 x 20mm guns in gondolas under the wings.
The Zeroes used 2 x 7.7mm (.303) & 2 x 20mm initially; later Hamp models used 1 x 7.7mm, 1 x 13.2mm & 2 x 20mm guns; and later, 3 x 13.2mm and 2 x 20mm.
One of the most comprehensive and objective comparisons I saw. I would like to add an aspect. the narrow landing gear of the 109, optimised for rail transport, later in the war led to horrendous losses due to landing accidents among the inexperienced and lack of fuel poorly trained replacement pilots in combination with the strong torque forces of the highly bred engines
Actually, that landing gear was designed to keep the smallest possible wing profile not transport. And while it could make landing difficult, you could also pull the wings and leave the body sitting on the gear. that was the reason they issues getting cannons in the wings no room.
Landing accidents were no worse than any other type. Look it up!
This is a bit biased. The Bf is a whole generation older, the initial models were struggling in Spain, while the Zero was coming to the constructors' tables. A fairer comparison would be with the fw 190.
@@raybird3041 The Bf was unstable on the ground, interestingly the FW 190 had (among fighters) the largest wheel spacing (who knows why)
@@RichGallant The wheels were fixed to the fuselage, because the wings were too weak for them. Even the cannons in the wings were subsequently bent, they were even weakened so that the wings could withstand them. The DB 601 engine was designed for a gun in the axis of the propeller, but in the initial models it was thrown out or replaced by a machine gun (C, D, E variants), due to insufficient cooling. Only since version F was it mounted
I am not even seven minutes in and I’m not going to finish watching this video due to all of the inaccuracies. You start off with the premise that the zero would’ve been better than the 109 in the battle of Britain in 1940, and then proceed to compare the zero to models of the BF 109 that didn’t come out until four years later! Then the first two performance metrics that you choose to compare them are highly dependent upon the enemy they were facing! You didn’t even bother to start off by comparing aircraft to aircraft, you started off by comparing their performance against their enemies, and you didn’t even bother to limit that to early in the war, you compared their performance across the entire war. The zero never had the luxury of facing off against droves of under performing aircraft with under performing pilots in an under performing system, i.e. the Soviet union. Instead, the zero started facing the Americans and British commonwealth forces, and while their aircraft were somewhat under performing and their pilots somewhat under performing in a system that was somewhat under performing, all of those factors were rapidly analyzed and adjusted so that even the first generation opponents of the zero began to at least fight it pretty much to a draw not long after its debut. The 109 racked up tens of thousands of kills against relatively easy opponents on the eastern front, while the zero fought against much tougher opponents. Then, you say that Japanese fuel at 85 octane late in the war was not enough to give good performance. While that’s true, the 109 fought most of the war on 87 octane. So….. While it’s absolutely true that the 109 was updated to -mostly- keep up with Allied advancements, the Zero really was not, such that the 109 was still a formidable adversary in the hands of a good pilot in 1945 while the Zero was substantially less effective by then.
As well, let’s not forget that the 109 was in combat during World War II for over two years before the zero debuted in the Pacific. That might have had just a little impact on the kill totals for the 109. Just a little. Furthermore, you’re comparing a land based plane against a carrier plane!
@@JWZelch Than you had to compare with the Ki43 Oscar, i think the zero was the better plane.
@@JWZelch The land based Zero was usually known as the Zeke.
The Bf109 and the Zero were designed to do different jobs.
A Bf109, flown by a Messerschmidt works pilot, defeated Zeros during a fly-off in Japan, when the German pilot was allowed to fly/fight to the strengths of the aircraft.
AFAIK the story is this pilot was told to fly in certain ways by the japanese instructors bnut refused and constantly flew to the 109s strenghs, very much outperforming the Zeros
A more interesting question is, which fighter would you want during the Battle of Britain? The E model 109 was much more comparable than the way late war models, which had much more power than the old Sakae. The Zero's big disadvantage was supposedly lack of armor/pilot protection. The 109's only started getting this in Summer 1940. Most E models had no armor during the BOB. (I am not sure on the self-sealing fuel tank situation). The E Messer was listed with a top speed of 354 MPH everywhere, the Zero A6M2 model of 1940, as 331, not a huge difference. Armament, dead even, although some BOB 109E models still had 4 MG armament. Ah range, here was the huge difference. Imagine the loiter time of A6M2's based in France? Would have been Big trouble for the RAF. Squadrons of Zeroes hitting the initial interceptors, then hanging over the airfields for 2 hours? Don't even want to think about it. Throw in the superior maneuverability issue and, I'll take the A6M. A very amazing design for 1940, and a Carrier fighter at that.
Absolutely right. The Zero's range, agility, armament, and rate of climb would have made it unbeatable during the BOB.
Excellent review. The Zero was a very focused design that was to be the ultimate long-range dogfighter. In that regard, it was never bested but it could not successfully adapt and evolve into anything outside of those orignal design parameters. The improvements were at best marginal when they came and already way behind the improvents in their opponent's aircraft. Love the Zero, but the 109 wins for sheer versatility and for being consequential until the very end of the war.
This is an extremely fine video that well analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both fighters. The idea by great Zero pilot Saburo Sakai that Germany would have been better served by the Zero than the 109 during the Battle of Britain due to the Zero's far greater range allowing greater time and reach over England is quite true. The conclusion that the 109 proved better in the long run due to its greater adaptability and thus ability to compete to the end of the war is also true. The only thing missing from the video is that both fighters are intentionally designed "light fighters" that maintain surprise (small size, hard to see) and numbers advantage (better use of resources) over the generally larger fighters of the opposition (though the Spitfire and P-51 are also light fighters).
Thanks for another fine feature! Regarding the assessment of BF-109 visibility, this was improved with the modified Erla-Haube canopy that appeared on later G-6s and was standardized on the G-14. Also, while the Germans were able to improvise to keep the 109 competitive, the later models weren't as effective as they looked on paper. Rapidly declining production quality control led to poorly fitted panels and warped surfaces that degraded performance; in a Messerschmitt factory test of random models some fell short of their "official" top speed by as much as 30 mph.
Because they got bombed into the Stone Age, but this isn't the topic.
@@0Turbox There's a little more to it than that; it was a combination of factors that turned production and maintenance of the 109 into a logistical nightmare.
@@Thermopylae1159 Much of it also had to do with massive use of forced labor. Sabotage was rampant on late war German hardware.
The Messerschmitt changed a lot during the war... in the video data from late war G and K models is shown which I find a bit unfair - these did not have much in common with early versions.
The E model would be a much better comparison - and then the A6M really looks very similar in performance while still having a significant range advantage.
Also, the Mitsubishi was made to specifications that were almost impossible to fulfill... hence the airframe was weak and there was little room for upgrades. The Japanese put too much emphasis on maneuverability and dogfighting. In hindsight this was a mistake, but at the time they were not alone with this idea (greetings to Bella Italia).
The Zero's combat performance rather gives the lie to the idea that its brief was impossible to fulfil.
I suggest you read _'Darwin Spitfires',_ by Anthony Cooper. It will give you an excellent idea of how the Japanese actually used it. Even if the Zero _was_ designed with manoeuvrability in mind, the pilots still observed good combat tactics, like attacking out of the sun. Even after the Battle of Midway, the Japanese were still a formidable force and remained that way probably until at least the end of 1943. Most of their problems, even then, were largely of someone else's making, since the Army and the Navy rarely agreed on much.
Really great comparison, good job!
It's mindblowing to think about how far we've come, a Eurofighter in intercept configuration with low fuel can climb 63,000 ft per minute!
For a high altitude hit from above, the BF-109. For low altitude slow, tight turning fights, the Zero.
Both fighters got most of their kills against inferior aircraft flown by pilots who did not know how to fight them
As one does.
@@LeCharles07 Yes, as one does. It's not as easy a day when the aircraft that you might encounter are as good as or better than yours, and their pilots are as well.
I think you would be surprised. During the defence of northern Australia, the Japanese came over at altitudes of between 25 and 28,000 feet. Even at that altitude, they gave RAAF Spitfires a very hard time.
I think the video sums it up very well. The Zero was world-beating at the start of the war, but the engineering tradeoffs made to achieve its design goals, using 1930s technology, made it so light and fragile, that it was a developmental dead end, and couldn't be improved very much as the war progressed. This became a real problem, as better American fighters came into service, and the superbly trained and highly experienced pilots Japan started the war with fell away through attrition. The Bf109, by contrast, remained a very capable fighter right to the end of the war, as noted in the video. It too was finally reaching the limit of its development potential, but it remained competitive with the best Allied fighters right up to the German surrender.
The 109 was MUCH faster than the Zero. As such it could dictate terms of engagement. German pilots had long mastered B&Z tactics so they were not going to get suckered into a turn fight. Of course, if the fight was over the Pacific then the Zero wins hands down. The 109s would run out of gas before they got 1/10th of the way to the target 😀
In any case, at the time of the creation of the Zero, the Germans already had variants with an N engine about 100 km/h faster than the Japanese fighter.
I strongly recommend you read, _'Darwin Spitfires',_ by Anthony Cooper. The Zeros gave the RAAF Spitfires a very hard time in the defence of Darwin. There were many reasons for this. The theoretical advantages of one over the other were rarely a factor. Surprise was a huge factor.
@@thethirdman225 Going to guess here, but the Spitfires excelled in turning fights. In the Zero they met a plane that did that better than they could.
@@patwilson2546 No. That was part of it but it was much more complicated than that. Almost all the dogfights were inconclusive. Those combats that were conclusive were generally a result of being bounced out of the sun. The RAAF’s radar network was improving rapidly and the controllers vectored the intercepts so that they came out of the sun - if possible. I can only think of a couple of dogfights that produced a result and those were equally distributed.
The trouble was that the RAAF leadership (Caldwell) was steeped in ‘big wing’ doctrine and line abreast/line astern tactics, which made getting into that position more difficult and the Spitfires were often bounced by Zeros before they could get into an advantageous position.
It’s almost impossible to pin the result down to any one factor and the Spitfire’s phenomenal level of unreliability hampered RAAF efforts. On the other side, the Japanese didn’t have radios so they relied on their extraordinary levels of training and discipline.
_’Darwin Spitfires’_ is an amazing book.
When the Spitfire came into service it had no armour, just like the Zero. Thus was remedied by time the Battle of Britain.
I would like to see how the F4U would fare against Luftwaffe fighters, after all in the right hands it could defeat MiG jets in Korea
The Greg’s Automobiles and Airplanes YT channel has a deep dive into a U.S. wartime technical evaluation of the F4U & F6F against contemporary versions of the Bf109 & FW190A.
When did the F4U defeat a jet in the Korean War? The Sea Fury is claimed to have done it.
@@egocyclic
*_"The Greg’s Automobiles and Airplanes YT channel has a deep dive into a U.S. wartime technical evaluation of the F4U & F6F against contemporary versions of the Bf109 & FW190A."_*
Greg doesn't read history. The problem is that he has convinced himself of how history _should_ have been without knowing about how it was. Now in the context of those comparisons, there's not a whole lot more to go on than spec sheet warfare. Even so, I still think that the kill in any combat will still go to the pilot who achieves surprise. It's always been the case and top speeds, rates of climb, turn, roll or acceleration are actually not a substitute for understanding combat tactics.
Take it and enjoy it but don't take it too seriously.
You're right: I don't like Greg, not even the videos of his that I thought were okay.
There is a really nice video of Drach about the Zero. Basically it was kinda mediocre by 42 and by 43 it was obsolete. The 109 was always competitive. Very different design choices for both planes. Cant be compared directly. One is naval design with specific requirements, the other was land based plane.
The one that doesn't detonate when you scratch the paint. Next question.
Just a small correction, the BF109 K4 did not have a speed of 452mph, that was an estimate based on the use of an experimental prop which was never used on production models. The actual speed of the K4 was around 440-444mph
Standard American armament was .50 caliber, not 50 millimeter, and British ,303's are nowhere near a 20 mm. A 303 is a rifle round. A 20 mm is a cannon round.
I've been watching this channel for half an hour and I'm wondering if these videos are written and voiced by AI? What a time to be alive. Given the enormous amoumt of information available online about these topics, the high level of detail, and even-keeled delivery, it's certainly possible. Doesn't matter either way, the videos are great.
Hi Joey @joeycampagna8698 - no they are not written by AI - we spend many hours researching and writing this content, and some is written by other aviation historians. AI such as Chat GPT is good but can have a bias or simply get things completely wrong (it's an averaging calculator - so if you average some right things with a bunch of wrong things, you are not going to get a good output). We use a voice emulator for the narration because it's articulate, punchy and clear - more so than our own voices - and it gives us good consistency across videos. Unfortunately for some, such voices are associated with hacks from some third world who are not experts, nor interested in accuracy, but rather just pumping out massive amounts of content for click's sake. We, however, spend countless hours making these videos for next to no financial compensation in relation to the time spent. But we are enthusiasts and enjoy the process and it seems some viewers also enjoy the results. Thanks for watching.
The Me-109 was superior because it had more room for evolution of the design while the zero didn't. The zero had to keep going with the same engine and Japan never really was able to put a decent functioning water methanol boost system into the frontline units. Plus the Me-109 had a better claim to loss ratio.
The Bf-109 racked up a lot of its claims on the Eastern Front.
The overall data was very good here, with the huge caveat of the weaponry discussed.
You say 50mm machine gun (obviously you meant 50 caliber) but then immediately compare it to Japanese 303mm, which makes it US weapon sound massively inferior.
The statement about the 303 being comparable to German 20mm cannons is just outrageous though.
The specs:
303 projectile weight - 174gr
.50 cal projectile weight - 710gr
20mm projectile weight -1500gr (varies a lot depending on shell, carried a large HE or API core charge as well.)
The 303s were pea shooters compared to the M2 50 cal and anything with a cannon.
By the time the Zero become common, we are talking 1941 - too late for BoB. The standard Bf 109 by that time was the F variant, outclassing the Zero in ever respect - expect for range and low speed manoeuvrability. The Bf109F was 60MPH faster, and also a much faster climber and diver.
Yes. But which would have done better?
Limited time over Britain was a killer for the entire German endeavor. The early Zero already proved itself against the early Spitfires and Hurricanes.
So I agree that 109s were overall superior to the Zero but…
…Germans flying the Zero over Britain would have won the BoB.
Two aircraft designed to meet different requirements. The 109 is definitely the superior fighter. But it would have been an absolute failure as a carrier operated fighter. With its high accident rate due to its narrow undercarriage on land can you imagine it operating from ships. When your landing strip can be moving in three directions at any one time. Plus just how much would the 109 need to be beefed up to handle carrier operations. There is a reason almost all carrier aircraft were powered by radial engines during WWII. A better question should be. 109 vs Zero vs F4-U.
50mm?! That's a cannon!!
Yep, actor Barry Corbin, as Korean War USMC pilot "Maurice Minnifield," also fell into that trap on "Northern Exposure."
Shockingly well done video.
Nice video though that was my only nitpick was the 50mm machine guns lol
Me 109 with 20,000 kills makes the Spitfire look inadequate with about 1/4 that number.
If the Germans had used Spits, the numbers would be equal.
Of which, about 15,000 of them were Russians.
@@bizjetfixr8352
*_"Of which, about 15,000 of them were Soviet pilots."_*
There, fixed it for you.
There's such a huge range in capacities over the duration of the year that it's exceedingly difficult to compare them as a whole: IMO, the most reasonable way is to compare the versions available at a given time.
13:28 the Zero's .303 machine guns were nowhere near comparable to the Bf109's MG151/20's autocannon... nowhere near the same ballpark even. The armament as a whole is a different story: the Zero had a pair of rifle caliber machine guns and a pair of 20mm autocannon, the late war Bf109 had a pair of rifle caliber machine guns and a single 20mm autocannon firing through the prop spinner.
Another advantage the A6M had was the landing gear, which opened away from the fuselage
In contrast; the BF 109s has much less forgiving landing gear which pivoted out from the wings towards the fuselage
a fatigued pilot, addled by pervitin (Amphetamin stimulant) often toppled upon landing on these less stable landing gear
although the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, & other bombers illustrated a more stable & robust configurations -the constraints on the design likely explains why this was never remedied
Actually, the DB-605 was regarded as a 'sick engine' by some people in the Luftwaffe. It was basically a bored-out DB-601 with less sophisticated crankshaft bearing configuration. It was subject to overheating issues and valve wear problems. The DB-601 it was derived from was much more capable and had better durability, though lower power than the 605. The Japanese Sakae 12/21 was tried and true, though limited in power. It was a perfect match for the Zero and provide tremendous fuel efficiency and reasonable performance at altitude. The difference between the DB-600 series and the Sakae 12/21 was attributable to the Zero being designed from the ground up as being a carrier borne fighter-weight control was essential and radial engines tended to be lighter than liquid cooled engines. The Bf-109 had more power, but it couldn't operate as naval fighter. Tradeoffs.
Why not the FW190 vs the J2M Raiden?????
You didn’t mention the 109’s poor takeoff characteristics.
Curious both the 109 AND the Spitfire had so narrow landing gear. Takeoff was a ballet. At least the humble Hurricane had a wider track.
The 109 took upgrades to better advantage and so we're more competitive at the end of the war assuming surviving pilots of quality could exploit what advantages were to be left to either. The Nakajima radIals negative G vulnerability was overstated by the US Air Intelligence Unit evaluation because ,lacking manuals they had gotten the carburetor's mechanism to mitigate the problem put together wrong. The Nakajima Sakai served in several aircraft with no such serious fuel starvation during negative G force. Turning the lightweight A6M and Ki 43 against the direction of propeller rotation presented a torque problem in turn rate (relative to the opposite direction) which was quickly noticed and exploited by the more attentive of their adversaries.
For the record, Zeros slaughtered Mk 8 Spitfires at first over Australia, Mk 1 Spitfires wouldn't have been a problem during the BOB.
*_"For the record, Zeros slaughtered Mk 8 Spitfires at first over Australia, Mk 1 Spitfires wouldn't have been a problem during the BOB."_*
No, that isn't true. For a start, the Zeros mostly fought against Mk VC Trop models over Northern Australia. They saw very few combats against the Mk VIII.
The introduction of the Spitfire into Australian service was necessary because the fighters we are using - the Kittyhawk and the Buffalo - could not compete with the Zero at altitude. In fact, the Buffalo was no competition for the Zero at all. Bu the biggest thing about the Spitfire was the propaganda value. Some of this was just contemporary racism but most of it was the glamour of the Spit, whose reputation had followed it everywhere it went after the Battle of Britain.
Secondly, I would argue that the contest was a lot closer and the exchange rate was about 1:1. The best source, by far, on this is _'Darwin Spitfires',_ by Anthony Cooper. It describes virtually all the combats that happened between the RAAF and the Japanese Navy and army (there was only one Army raid). While the RAAF ultimately made further incursions unprofitable for the Japanese, it was no thanks to the Spitfire, which was very unreliable suffering cannon stoppages and - worse - constant speed unit failures. There was really only one example of a Japanese fighter that kind of stereotypically folded up. That was a Ki-43, shot down by Flt Lt Tim Goldsmith in the only Army raid.
The RAAF also used outdated and frankly, foolish 'big wing' tactics, with which the RAF were also saddled after the political fallout of the Battle of Britain.
That said, there is little doubt that the Zeros gave the RAAF a hard time. Even at the end of 1943, Japanese pilots were still extremely well disciplined and deployed excellent tactics, like attacking out of the sun. Furthermore, the Zero was employed in a role that most would find surprising: high altitude. The bombers frequently came over at 25,000 feet and their escorts at least 3,000 feet higher. Their combat formation flying was exemplary, despite the lack of radios.
I strongly recommend you read _'Darwin Spitfires'._
Highly interesting , tnx!
The A6M was never upgraded like US/UK/German aircraft over time as it was light and well designed to begin with, you couldn't remove more weight, it's flight controls limited it, and Japan lacked a better engine to put in the Zero.
In combat, a key factor of performance is acceleration ; the late model 109's noted in the article were sluggish and overweight, carrying heavy weapons meant to attack bombers. The brochure numbers (450+mph at height, or 380mph at SL) were unreachable in a fully-equipped combat-configured production fighter, and agility in a dogfight was seriously degraded from early models.
A6M Climb Rate: 3100 fpm
Me109 climb rate: 3900 fpm
P-39 climb rate: 3600 fpm (pre-war fighter)
P-38 climb rate: 3300 fpm (pre-war fighter)
F4U climb rate: 2400 fpm (pre-war fighter)
F4U-4 climb rate: 4300 fpm
Spitfire climb rate: 2600-3200 fpm (pre-war fighter), late war variants pushing to 4000+ fpm
F4F climb rate: 3300 fpm (pre-war fighter)
P-51B and P-51D proved capable of 3800 to 4600 fpm.
F8F set climb rate record at 6378 fpm in 1946. in 2018 a heavily modified Harmon Rocket came within 4sec of the F8F record.
Comparing A6M2 with BF109 K4... very relevant... bravo...
in summary, the german is a mix martial arts sprinter, japanese was lightweight boxer and endurance runner
Very Good Documentary!!!
There was only 2 problems with zero : there was no enough powerfull engine and, more important, japanese doctrine was WW1, not WW2. So Zero was the ultimate WW1 fighter. Shame this was WW2.
BF109 could improve its performances through the war. Zero couldn't.
BF109 had better armament, speed, climb and dive, that makes a better B&Z fighter. Zero sucks at high speeds.
BF109 had a true radio for teamwork. Zero had to rely on telepathy.
BF109 had a little armor for protecting the pilot. Zero had none.
BF109 was cheaper to build. Zero was a complex fighter.
Zero had better landing gear and more robust engine. Shame it was not enough to compensate for the rest.
Zero had awesome range. Shame US had radar to better use of their fighters.
BF109 achieved positive kill ratios against enemy fighters. Zero had only negative against even the early F4F Wildcat.
The japanese copy of BF109 was considered a better fighter than the Zero... Well... When it worked.
The 109 is supperior to the zero in most Comparisons
The P-51D was designed to be a long-range escort fighters. The Bf-109 was a short range interceptor.
Actually, the Mustang was not designed as a long range fighter.
It was initially just designed as a general-purpose fighter...with average range. And it's initial engine - the Allison V-1710 - was lousy at high altitude.
It wasn't until first the Merlin was added.
And then - in 1943 - the fuselage mounted fuel tank as well, that the P-51B became a long-range fighter.
☮
@@McRocket I've got the combat range of a Spitfire Vb as being 248 miles (or 479 miles one way) (source Morgan, Eric B. and Edward Shacklady. Spitfire: The History (5th rev. edn.)). Whilst the Mustang I or P-51 carried 150 Imperial Gallons of fuel which was just under double that of the Spitfire (85 Imperisl Gallons) giving the Mustsng I a one-way range of about 750 miles (Source Jane's All the World's Aircraft of WW2)..
@@neiloflongbeck5705 The Spitfire was a pure short range, point defense/limited recon fighter. At only 85 gallons internal capacity...it could not do much else without drop tanks.
The P-51 was designed as an alternative to the P-40. North American was asked to manufacture the P-40 for foreign orders. They designed their own alternative instead - the P-51.
The P-40 had a longer range than the Spitfire at 134 gallons. But it was not a long range escort fighter per se. But U.S. fighters had more internal fuel than European fighters generally did. The P-51 was given (initially) 170 gallons. More than the P-40. But not massively so.
Only in 1943, did the later 'B' models get the additional fuel tank to bring their total to 269 gallons.
Also, the Allison engine stunk at high altitude. And the main US heavy bomber going forward was the B-17. Which had a much higher effective ceiling than the P-40/early P-51's. Seems silly (to me) to design a long range escort fighter for a bomber that you cannot even climb high enough to properly protect.
Yes, the Mustang was much larger ranged than the Spitfire/bf109. But, imo, they were not designed per se for long range escort missions. They just happened to be equipped with more fuel - as was standard for all US fighters.
That is how I see it, anyway.
☮
@@McRocket a Spitfire photo-reccon aircraft was the first single-engined aircraft over Berlin and all done without drop tanks, so hardly limited. The P-51 had 180 USgallons (150 Imperial gallons) of fuel not 170. Original post states the P-51D and not any other variant, please learn to read.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 1) it is 527 miles from Dover to Berlin. It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for a stock, 85 gallon Spitfire to fly a combat mission to Berlin and back without drop tanks.
2) the prototype Mustang (XP-51) had 170 gallons.
3) The P-51 'B' variant had the extra fuel tank before the 'D' variant. The main differences of the 'D' over the 'B" were the bubble canopy and a redesigned wing. Thus, the 'D' variant was NOT designed for greater range. It was a variation over the already long-ranged 'B'.
I suggest you look up your data before you start posting 'facts'/conclusions.
☮
Examples of pre-war designs that fought frontline action at the end of WW2,
B-29
P-38
F4U
F6F (barely)
P-40
Spitfire
Me-109
A6M
P-39 (served into Korea, one of the highest scoring allied fighters of WW2)
F4F
A6M was designed so close to the war that Pearl Harbor was basically its official debut. The F6F had already been designed and flew shortly after Pearl Harbor, but then underwent some redesign. P-47 development started pre-war.
The A6Ms combat debut was in China in 1940. A year plus before Pearl Harbor.
@@bizjetfixr8352 " Pearl Harbor was basically its official debut."
I qualified my statement. but it requires you to actually read and comprehend what I wrote.
The western powers ignore report of its existence and capabilities, until facing it for real at Pearl Harbor.
What I said was accurate, as very few people had fought it until then, and taken it seriously.
P-40, P-39, F4F?
Yeah, they were "front line". In secondary theaters/missions.
By late 1944:
P-40 - Out of production, used to harass bypassed Island garrisons
P-39 - Only used by the Russians (which, as far as fighter combat was concerned, was not the big leagues)
F4F - vastly improved FM-2s, used off escort carriers, mainly for anti submarine work, ground support/amphibious CAP
They are Exhibit A for the saying "any airplane is better than no airplane at all."
@@bizjetfixr8352 Wrong. P-39 was a front line fighter on the Eastern Front, a MAJOR frontline theater, until the end. But clearly you think the Russians don't count as a major theater of operations.
P-40 fought on the front lines until the end across teh globe.
F4F was in all the major battles until the end, as all the escort carriers relied upon them until the very last days, in support of every major action. The US never operated FM-2s either, they operated late model F4F with great success too.
This isn't about "production", stop trying to change the argument. This has NOTHING to do with what was claimed in the video, nor what I posted in my comment.
"P-40 - Out of production, used to harass bypassed Island garrisons"
not everything was bypassed and ignored, battles occurred, were occurring. you don't have to be part of the main thrust to be "frontline". Do you also consider the battles in Sicily and Italy to not count as frontline combat as well?
you love cherry picking to suite your narrative. try being logically consistent.
Tough call which is better as each was made for specific tactical purposes, the bf109 would never have the range for the pacific and the pilot protection was to low for the germans to sacrifice pilots not to memtion other things.
The comparison of planes should be the ones in production between Jul 10, 1940, and Oct 31, 1940.
@13:26 you mean 50 cal not 50 mm. @17:46 you failed to mention how hard it was for the pilot to get out of the 109's canopy design if shot down. They had to roll inverted and drop out of the cockpit. Meanwhile all Allied planes had a bubble canopy that pushed backwards. This meant they could bail out in level flight. The 109 pilot due to wind pressure could not do this. However all round I do agree the Me 109 was the better aircraft than the A6M Zero on almost all levels.
However. Just imagine a Zero with a 109's G engine that the Reich allowed Japan to build themselves on licence.
That engine would have to fit the airframe.
Yes .50 cal, of course - that's what you get writing this stuff late at night lol. I'll make a note of correction. Thanks for spotting it. Good point about the canopy design as well.
@@bernardwills9674 Given it was a V formation engine already in a plane much smaller than the A6M, and it was replacing a radial engine which is much larger in size, I do not think that would have been a problem.
The Ki61 had a DB601 engine in it and was totally unserviceable in the pacific theatre, it was in effect a Japanese 109, the DB was a high tech engine something that the Japanese ground crew had difficulties with, there is no comparison to the 109
A few inaccuracies, but a very fair assessment of both aircraft. The Zero was great until it took damage. They succumbed quickly and gave pilots a very narrow opportunity to survive.
The BF-109 was a small aircraft with a large engine. It gave great performance, but it was a defensive fighter. Its lack of range made it a terrible escort fighter.
As pointed out: each fighter was tailored to fit the fighter doctrine of their parent countries.
Both were successful. To think you could substitute one for the other and have it succeed in a different theatre of ear is naive.
zero was a very good plane for the money. with serious flaws for lack of money. they had the expertise, and later planes were good, but material supply prevented adequate numbers.
109 competitive throughout the war, started good, and kept pace with the competition until they ran out of materials.
Not really. They left the G6 in production way too long.
This is a bit biased. The Bf is a whole generation older, the initial models were struggling in Spain, while the Zero was coming to the constructors' tables. A fairer comparison would be with the fw 190.
The Zero would have been still inferior to the FW 190 A. The A3 version of the 190, which was introduced in early 1942, was 70 mph faster than the Zero, had a better rate of climb, could dive much faster, enjoyed a much better rate of role, and with an armament of 4+20mm cannon and 2+7.9mm machine guns, had a much heavier armament The only areas where the Zero was demonstrably superior to the German machine was in it's rate of turn and range. The German machine because it was armoured and equipped with self sealing fuel tanks was also much more durable than the Zero. In short, the FW 190 was the best fighter in the World until the introduction of the Spitfire Mk 9b in mid 1942.
It is also worth noting that by the time of Pearl Harbour, the German fighter arm was also equipped with the F4 model of the Bf 109. This model of the Bf 109 was 60 mph faster than the A6M2 mod 21 variant of the Zero, which equipped Imperial Japanese Naval front line fighter units in the first year of the Pacific War. In comparison to the Zero, Bf 109F4 also enjoyed much better high altitude performance than the Japanese machine. In addition, although it had a similar rate of climb, the F4 could dive faster than the Zero. The areas where the German machine was inferior to the Japanese fighter were range, turning ability, and armament. Unlike the FW 190, the Bf109 F4 was equipped with only 1+20mm cannon and 2+7.9mm machine guns versus the 2+ 20 mm cannons and 2+7.7mm machine guns of the Zero. The German machine because it was equipped with pilot armour and a self sealing fuel tank was also far more resistant to battle damage than the Zero, which for all intents and purposes was an unarmoured fire trap. In short, as long as these German fighters kept up their speed and refused to engage in a low speed turning fight with the Zero, like the American P 38 F and F4U Corsair, which came into service towards the end of 1942, they could back foot the Japanese fighter. Even fighters like the P40 Warhawk, even though it was inferior in certain important technical respects to the Japanese fighter, could beat the Zero if it kept up its speed and employed boom and zoom tactics.
Bf109 is supercharged and was capeable of higher speeds and higher ceiling. But could not turn tight in a dog fight. Plus the bf carried two 20mm cannon on top of the machine guns
Now if the Germans had developed workable non flame able drop tanks before BOB that would have made a huge difference.
While i did like this video, there were quite a few mistakes and i guess speculation (probably taken from source material that contained them) about the zero, which made the video less good than it could have been, however if it was researched better, the format, narrators voice and imagery would lead to an absolutely fantastic documentary. So i will give an excellent work as a review, with the caveat that more in depth understanding of aircraft in general, air combat and the vehicles which you are comparing is required in future. Subscribed and hope to see you excel in the future
We look at a lot of different sources - which can offer up conflicting data - so it is difficult to satisfy everyone's take on the 'truth', although we do our best. Even when we've used (with permission) expert historian narratives, we still get critics about this or that point. What we are learning from being on RUclips, is that we will never satisfy the often very vocal critics (who are often non-specific in their criticism). Nevertheless, we are open to, and welcome, constructive criticism and correction and will improve as we move forward. Thanks for subscribing!
@@raafdocumentaries thanks for replying, if you like once im free to do so (after work) i can go into more detail if you like
@@Colt45hatchback If there are specific points/mistakes probably the most expedient thing to do would be to put them in comments here on RUclips for both us and other viewers - that would be awesome. Thanks for your help.
@@raafdocumentaries will do, ill watch it over after work, write them down as i go and let you know, hopefully also with links to at least a secondary source that has a link to a primary source with it, so you may cross check it with your own research material, you're welcome, happy to help
Not an expert.
Zero versus Me109.
Zero has cannon in the wings, instead of underwing pods-which are problematic for drag and lift. Zero a bit lighter for the same engine power vis a vis contemporary Me109 variants. Zero not as good in the dive. Spiraling climb is excellent for either plane.
If you want a turning battle down on the deck, Zero is your man. Boom and Zoom at 10,000'? It'd be interesting to watch.
With that said . . .
Zero was a carrier fighter. Sturdier than some claim, Zero was meant for the rigors of carrier take off and landing. It was not a dedicated dogfighter, but a long range escort and CAP fighter.
Me109 was meant as an air superiority fighter. Modifying it to fit other roles was not altogether successful. Indeed, later marks had unbalanced cooler and ram air intakes and cowling/fuselage bulges that earlier versions did not. These changes and additions rendered the later marks more draggy, less nimble.
Zero was used in many roles, from dedicated Carrier Day Fighter piloted by the best flyers in the world, to Notional Night Fighter manned by carrot pounding samurai. It tangled with Spits and Hurries and the all powerful Swordfish , though the great weight of effort was sent against the USN's F6F and Corsair defenders. The Zero dropped bombs, shot up bug juice stills, regularly raked the bridges of enemy warships with cannon fire . . . The 109, in contrast, was best as an interceptor-a bomber buster; in other roles* it suffered.
Each in its place, each according to its role indexed over the nation's need, Zero and Me109 were national symbols by war's end. Neither made the kind of long endurance, fast climbing, high altitude interceptor their nations needed most from mid 1944 onward. The J2M and Dora 9 were supposed to replace the older planes, in effect keeping up with the allied Joneses . . . but a series of most unfortunate events intervened.
*Eastern Front air fights were most often conducted at extreme low level, usually in foul weather. The Me109 T is too rare to really give it its due, but navalized land fighters in a word sucked. The best naval fighters were purpose designed as such. The same with Air Superiority Fighters. It's why the US wasn't interested in using Mustangs on carriers. Or Corsairs. to be fair . . . the British solved that one for the Navy, while the USMC ignored the paradigm and made the Corsair a fine land based bomb truck to prove the rule.
Strip the 109 off its armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, and it would have flown rings around the Zero. When the Zero entered service in numbers, the Germans already fielded the F-Version and that's not even a competition. A few months later, the FW-190 entered service, same here.
13:32 - the British 303 was a 0.3inch bullet, not a 0.79inch diameter bullet of the 20mm - which BTW was a cannon, not a machine gun. The British machine gun was nowhere near the power of the 20mm. Spitfires were initially armed with 8 .303 machine guns (4 in each wing), but that was later changed to a pair of 20mm cannons with either a pair of 303's or a pair of 50 calibre machine guns.
There are some errors in this video. For instance American fighters had 50 calibre machine guns which come out to like 12. Something millimeter not 50mm
Thanks - we make pinned comments to highlight such errors (which are mostly picked up in the first hour of us posting), and we also change the CC as well. Please check the pinned comments (hardly anyone does) and that will save me from getting the same comments multiple times.
@@raafdocumentaries thanks will do from now on.
Captain Eric Brown, Britain's greatest test pilot, flew both. Though the performance of later Bf-109s was superior on paper (from the 'F' onwards, which appeared in 1941), he rated the Zero much higher. The reasons were better handling, far superior visibility and a less claustrophobic cockpit. The Bf-109 was notoriously difficult to land with a very narrow track undercarriage. In fact 5% of them were destroyed in landing accidents.
Captain Brown disliked the 'G' version of the 109 that appeared from 1942 and was the main production version. Messerschmitt's fighter reached its peak with the earlier Bf-109F version. Handling of the later versions seriously deteriorated, which wasn't so with the Zero.
The Zero was not updated beyond a 150 hp increase in engine power, it never exceeded a speed of 350 mph later bf 109's and Spitfires hit 450 mph. The poor performance of Spitfire V in the east could be put down to inexperienced pilots .
I think the best comparation is about engine power, and Bf-109E would be more similar to A6M5 overall. Comparing Zero with Bf-109K4 is really unfair, it's just to compare Emil with Karl. You cannot avoid the lack of almost 1,000 HP. Yes, the Bf-109 had more potential than the Zero. But also was less reliable, less ranged, less agile and the last versions were not so OK overall as is often claimed.
Armament: Bf-109E and A6M5 roughly par but with the A6M with more ammunition (250 vs 120 for 20 mm, but less so for the mgs) and external stores as standard (up to 300+ kg bombs or ext tanks)
Agility: A6M is the winner
Visibility: A6M is the winner
Undercarriage: A6M is the best one
Flexibility: A6M can operate from aircraft carriers, and is also a fighter bomber + a long range fighter/escort/attack aircraft.
Performances: speed max, draw; climb, draw; dive, Bf-109E is better; range: A6M is over 2 time better than the Bf-109.
Armour: no armour for none of them (yes, also the Emil initially did not have armour, nor the Spitfire for that matters).
-A6M5, with the same engine power, can fly as fast as the Bf-109E, with the same armament, a lot better in agility, visibility, undecarriage, range, flexibility (carrier and fighter-bomber missions).
-A6M5 was also a lot faster than the FM-2 that still had more HP.
-A6M5 was faster than the Sea Hurricane and, except for the low level missions, faster than the early Seafires
-A6M5 was as fast as the Bf109T that had the DB-601 slighty more powerful, and surpass the german fighter in range and agility, equal firepower.
-A6M5 vs Ki-43-II: with the same engine, about 30 km/h faster, more armed, more ranged, with the carrier capability included in the tag.
I'd say not really that bad for a lightweight fighter with about 1,100 hp engine.
Pretty simple. The Zero was designed as a turn fighter, and was exceptionally good at the job it was designed for. 109's were already energy fighting in the Spanish civil war, and continued to get better at it as the war progressed. History shows that energy fighters beat turn fighters, assuming the aircraft is flown to maximize it's advantage.
And yet this had very little effect on the way the Japanese fought in WWII. Their highly disciplined pilots, still functioning without radios as late as the end of 1943, employed excellent combat tactics, avoiding dogfighting and attacking out of the sun wherever possible. Their section formation flying was also very good and the oft-quoted stereotypes about the way they are usually said to have fought don't hold a lot of water. The assumptions about altitude are among the least reliable.
If the right combat tactics are used, 'getting the maximum performance out of the aircraft' isn't really a part of it. You bounce your opponent, shoot him down before he realises it and go home. The 'maximum advantage' is the same, whatever you fly (within reason; you can't reasonably expect a Wirraway to be competitive with a Zero). The Boelke Dicta held as true in WWII as it did in WWI. But would that be considered 'zoom and boom' tactics? Because that wasn't supposed to be to the Zero's best advantage. Yet that's easily what got them the most kills. By a long way.
Very few of their dogfights over Northern Australia were conclusive. Their bounces out of the sun easily brought them greater success.
The a5m2 locks itself even in level flight after a speed of 580km.
When flying a5m2 at a speed of 580km, you can never catch the plane in front of you.
Ki-61, which has a speed of 570km, can reach up to 750km in diving.
bf-109E7 can reach speeds of 750km while diving.
It is impossible to shoot down P-47 and B-17 with 2x 20mm 500, 2x 7.92mm.
While Clive Caldwell was flying a P-40, he was attacked by Bf-109E7 Werner Schröder.
5 20mm, werner Schröder kills his wingman despite 100 7.92mm damage.
a5m2 weapons are very inadequate
I never understood why the Luftwaffe didn't fits a (Drop Tank) to their Bf 109 E 's at the start of the Battle of Britain in the Summer of 1940. It would of extended its range by approximately 100 miles. Which would of made a tremendous difference while fighting over London in September 1940! It wasn't until early 1941 that the formentioned Drop tank was fitted to The Bf 109 E to K models!
That depends on the size of the tank.
Americas were taught to never dogfight with a Zero. We had no aircraft that could stay with a low and slow Zero. From what I have read o the subject not even the Spitfire could turn with a Zero.
One reason the zero didn't see much performance increase is the lighter airframe was also more delicate. This doesn't just apply to absorbing bullets, it also applies to high speeds. The wings would warp at high speed and the turning characteristics would suffer, at high enough speed the zero would become less maneuverable than other fighters it normal would have no problem turning inside of. There isn't much point in packing more engine performance into an airframe that can't handle it.
Where did you get this from?
Whilst the Zero had the range, it didn't have the armour nor self-sealing fuel-tanks. So had those been added to a Luftwaffe version, yes, indeed, they'd have done very well over Britain.
Just a short comment the Germans never would have accepted the Zero as built, no armor, no self sealing tanks. And while the range was outstanding the European nations saw no need for huge ranges. Europe is a small place, as compared to the Pacific or North America, so until the war became one that need range, starting with BoB then the bombing of Europe it was an bit of a rude awaking.
The difference was that the zero was flown by professional pilots in the beginning the Americans in the beginning where less trained. In Europe the difference was less pronounced and the use in the battle of Brittain killed many the best in a less than ideal fight.
How many zeroes were in service in Jun-Sep 40 ? About 15 from what I can see
so interesting. The general spoken "myth" is the zero was best.
At the beginning of the war among the US, UK, Japan, and Germany, the US had arguably the leadt capable aircraft, skewing historical data.
The zero did well over Darwin Australia against Spitfires, so Germans would have would have been competitive against the British in the battle of Britain with the Zero, but as mentioned pilot training may also have a factor.
I think this is the best way to look at it. Have you read _'Darwin Spitfires',_ by Anthony Cooper?
Zeros could have easily escorted German bombers to London and beyond without raising a sweat. They could have flown from airfields in Northern France and easily attacked airfields in the North of England. They could probably have escorted KG5 from Norway.
Japanese pilot training was excellent. Their formation flying was first rate and the tactical discipline equally so, despite functioning without radios. Certainly over Northern Australia. I think the RAF would have found them a very tough opponent in the Battle of Britain.
The BF 109 is by far the better aircraft. For one reason. It’s growth. For a aircraft that could only do 350 mph at is beginnings to over 430 mph at is end. Where as the A6M started at 320 mph and ended at just 350mph tops The 109 is far better aircraft.
The Bf109 would not meet Japanese requirements.
In the book The big E, they mention a "Japanese ME-109" was shot down by the carrier's fighters.
And that was a year before the first flight of the Hien.
Could it be an operational evaluation?
@@OscarReyes-ud4vz …. The Japanese did evaluate the Bf109. Messerschmidt was looking to sell a license for production. The Nazis were generous sharing their technology. But it was one sided. For a time during the war German long range aircraft made flights to Japanese occupied China. But an actually Bf109 flown in action by Japan? No
A testimony to the Bf-109 airframe that continued until 1959. The A6M airframe did not.
The thesis of this video is pretty faulty from the outset. They were very different fighters used in very different theaters and contexts.
The Zero was actually overestimated during it's era of successes. Once the Americans got their hands on one and tested it they found that it was a very 1930's design that was good but was lightly built to get a performance edge.
The 109 was a great aircraft, and it fought/was used for the duration of the entire conflict being modified/upgraded many times. It shares this with the Spitfire which was also modified and upgraded over time. This makes a lot of the performance calculations kind of meaningless because they are from different times during the war.
Finally, as you mentioned, tactics were the real key in the end. After getting their asses handed to them several times, allied pilots in the Wildcat and the P-40 learned not to play to the Zero's strengths and use slashing faster attacks rather than getting into turn fights. This meant that over time the allies managed to fight the Japanese to a standstill at least. A fight that became attritional which the Japanese couldn't afford. Not in materials or men to replace those lost. Once later types of aircraft entered the fight, the Zero was on it's back foot, and not helped by lack of experienced pilots as the war went on.
The 109 did well because it is also (I think?) the most produced fighter of the war, and it had initially at least a huge amount of success on the Eastern Front. Also as they got more and more outnumbered, there was never a shortage of targets for them to try and kill.
I highly doubt that the Zero would have made much of a difference to the BoB. They could have stayed over Britain for longer, but over time the RAF pilots would have adjusted their tactics and then find out, as the allies did later in the war, just how lightly built the Zero was and how easy it caught fire.
The Bf-109 finished the war as a still viable fighter aircraft. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but a competent pilot could still fight the aircraft effectively. The A6M, while being highly maneuverable and with excellent range, had too many glaring faults that once known were easy to exploit and impossible to address e.g. lack of armour, self-sealing tanks, weak armament, and control surfaces locking up at high speed, especially in the dive. Both planes were built to do different jobs but if I had to choose between the two to dogfight an allied fighter, I'd take the 109.
4:00 wikipedia /Luettelo Lentolaivue 24:n ilmavoitoista ja sotatoimitappioista/ List of wins and losts in Finnish. 42:1 against of large variety of soviet and western airplanes.
When it comes to *range* it's really no contest.
And any offensive weapon is ultimately as effective as its effective range.
Anyways, they were designed for totally different roles. One of them was designed to be launched off an aircraft carrier. Apples and oranges.
What great naval based fighter did the Germans develop? If so that would have been a more apt comparison.
The Bf-109 would've been a terrible carrier fighter and the A6M would've been terrible at high altitude bomber attacks. Also, it seemed to me, that the IJN consistently threw away the A6M's range advantage by steaming TOWARD the USN carriers during an attack, rather than launching from out of range. They did this in numerous battles from Coral Sea right through to the Guadalcanal area sea battles and I never understood why. The likely reason was that the strike group admirals and even strike aircraft commanders were not aviators.
The BF109 is easily the better of these two. Imo the BF109 is the best piston engine fighter. From the first day of German involvement in the Spainish Civil War to the last day of the war in Europe, there was a BF109 varient capable of making a smoking hole in the ground out of it's adversaries. It was also used by Spain, Czechoslovakia and Israel after WWII.
The 109 had more variants and more highly developed in most respects than the Zero. That said, there were Zeros that were still giving the Allies a hard time as late as the end of 1943.
@@thethirdman225 Yes, till the Corsair showed up.
@@ramimariewilson4672
*_”Yes, till the _**_-Corsair-_**_ Hellcat showed up.”_*
Fixed it for you.
@@thethirdman225 The Corsair's combat debut was Feb. 1943 the Hellcat's was Sept. of that same year. Soooo there's that. Ruined it 4U.
@@ramimariewilson4672 The Corsair was a significant capability increase but its early combat record was blunted by its poor handling. For that reason it was withdrawn from carrier use and used as a land based fighter until quite late in the war. The Hellcat had no such problems.
The Corsair was claimed to have a K/D of 11:1 compared to 19:1 for the Hellcat.
The Corsair shot down fewer than 3,000 Japanese aircraft, compared to 5,169 for the Hellcat. As good as the Corsair undoubtedly was, it was the Hellcat that won the air war in the Pacific.
Fantastic video!
This was comparing apples and oranges.
The Zero was built as a carrier aircraft for the Pacific Ocean.
Even if you would compare a F6F Hellcat to a BF 109 of the same time, the 109 would climb faster and higher, had more top speed and a higher max ceiling.
And the majority of the 109 aerial victories were achieved over Russia against a far inferior enemy.
The 109 was designed to be a fast interceptor/air superiority fighter, and it was upgraded throughout its service. The Zero had too many limitations to upgrade it, so the Japanese Navy opted to design new fighters instead, resulting in the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, and the A7M. Kawanishi, Kawasaki, and Nakajima developed (arguably) better fighters for the Japanese Army.
If the Germans had used Zeros instead of 109's from the start of the war, the RAF would have figured out their strengths and weaknesses before the Battle of Britain, which would have cost Germany even more dearly. The Spitfire was faster, nearly as agile, and was better protected. Spitfires were mostly used to harass German bomber escorts while Hurricanes hit the bombers. 109's could often run home after a fight, but Zeros were slower than Spitfires or even Hurricanes.
Perhaps most importantly, the 109 could survive more damage and protect its pilot better. Experienced pilots were more valuable than the planes they flew.
Actually, the Zero was an obsolete design from the start. It just took a while for our less experienced pilots to figure that out. The P-40 and F4F had killed many of the superior Japanese pilots before the Corsair, Hellcat, and large numbers of P-38s arrived by simply never slowing down in combat. Designed for just range and maneuverability, it couldn't cope with American planes that excelled at the highest possible speed.
The 109 was, arguably, the first truly modern "boom and zoom" fighter though some would say it was more of a hybrid compared to the Corsair and P-38 which exemplified that aspect and were the first fully in that class. Also, the 109K was just too late to be relevant. The G series was a legitimate threat to, generally superior, later fighters in the hands of the dwindling experts but was a sitting duck if up gunned to tackle bombers. And? The DB605 was never as reliable as the earlier 601 and weighed down the 109 to the point that the G was much more difficult to fly than previous models. It and the Zero were only around at the end because neither country was able to build successors.
Cheers!
Kill totals is totally irrelevant. The Germans racked up huge totals strafing Soviet airfields filled with aircraft. China, and later the U.S. didn't have huge numbers of aircraft sitting idle. Other than one-off instances like Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, the Japanese just didn't have those opportunities
A good overall video, but a few things I want to address.
First, the superiority of the Zero over the P40 and F4F is overstated. Dog fighting depended on multiple things; the aircraft capabilities, the ability and experience of the pilots, the tactical situation at the beginning of the battle, and (IMHO, most important) whether the pilots used their aircraft's strengths and avoided their enemy's. Both the P40 and F4F had excellent records against the Zero overall; from the Flying Tigers before the war, to the adaptation of tactics by US pilots (the Thatch Weave, in particular) - this allowed US pilots to effectively battle the Zero, even before better US fighters arrived.
A direct comparison is a difficult one to make, since - as noted - they were designed for radically different strategic purposes. I don't believe that a Zero and a
109 ever faced off in real combat, so there is no way to make a 1v1 judgment.
Overall though, I believe that the 109 was the more effective aircraft, and certainly remained more dangerous as the war continued. As the supply of experienced Japanese pilots waned, it affected Japan more than the similar problems affected Germany. Japan's pilot training program was very inefficient - Germany's produced better basic pilots at a faster pace.
*_"First, the superiority of the Zero over the P40 and F4F is overstated. Dog fighting depended on multiple things; the aircraft capabilities, the ability and experience of the pilots, the tactical situation at the beginning of the battle, and (IMHO, most important) whether the pilots used their aircraft's strengths and avoided their enemy's."_*
In the defence of Port Moresby by RAAF 75 Squadron, aircraft capabilities had little influence. As soon as 75 got there, the first thing Sqn Ldr John Jackson did was plan and execute an extremely successful raid on the primary Japanese base at Lae. Virtually all his pilots were novices who had done no formation flying and hadn't even fired their guns. The 'Zero v Kittyhawk' battles never really came down to dogfighting and nearly everything was about surprise attacks, out of the sun or out of cloud. The terrain in New Guinea played a much bigger role than anyone gives it credit for.
*_"Both the P40 and F4F had excellent records against the Zero overall; from the Flying Tigers before the war, to the adaptation of tactics by US pilots (the Thatch Weave, in particular) - this allowed US pilots to effectively battle the Zero, even before better US fighters arrived."_*
The Flying Tigers didn't fight against Zeros, though that doesn't mean they didn't fight against competent Japanese pilots. That said, units like 75 learnt early from the experience of Chennault. But a lot of the assumptions that are made on the internet about the way the Japanese fought are misguided.
*_"A direct comparison is a difficult one to make, since - as noted - they were designed for radically different strategic purposes. I don't believe that a Zero and a_*
*_109 ever faced off in real combat, so there is no way to make a 1v1 judgment"_*
More a question of the strategic situation. The Germans would have given there eye teeth for an aircraft with the range performance of the Zero during the Battle of Britain. And look what happened once the USAAF got its hands on the P-51. Same deal.
In short, it's called power projection.
*_"Japan's pilot training program was very inefficient - Germany's produced better basic pilots at a faster pace."_*
I disagree.
It's true that Japanese pilot training eventually suffered. However, it happened a lot later than most people - even me - realised. There were still plenty of competent, highly disciplined Japanese pilots, who employed excellent tactics as late as the end of 1943, as the Australian Spitfire pilots found out in their defence of Darwin.
By comparison, the bleeding away of German pilots, particularly on the Eastern Front, meant that by 1943, the average new pilot in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours, including 10-15 on type, while the average American had 600+ with 50-100 on type. The Germans peaked just before Barbarossa.
Regarding the the Spitfire XIV. 109K-4
Where these researchers get their information from is anyone's guess. Perhaps they jump at the sensational rather than the context. Stating that the K-4 could reach 452mph and that it climbed better that the MK XIV is not very accurate. In fact, it's more or less, wrong.
See: 'WWII Aircraft performance' for the comparison of the the Spitfire XIV. to the 109K-4.
The kill loss rates are not a very good guage. Especially as the most overclaimed fighter by Luftwaffe pilots in the West was the Spitfire.
CONTEXT: "The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assuming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller."
.
the Spitfire was an even match for the Zero in dogfights, as proven by the spitfire dogfights with the Zero in the early south Pacific air war.
I would like to see a db 601 running on 150 octane fuel