A6M Zero - Japan's Mystery Machine 

Thanks

I totally agree! I'm subscribing to this channel for this exact reason. First hands accounts always trump what someone else researches.

Indeed.

These pilots also seem to be using "zoom and boom", as did USN aviators. One of the Spitfire pilots explains that they were taught never to get into a turning fight with the Zero. He add that they would dive on the Japanese, fire, climb, and dive again.

I would argue the corsair was the ultimate zero killer.

@@jmcfintona999 The kill ratio was about the same but the F6F was better suited to carrier op's than the Corsair was. That's the main difference. Most of the Zero's U.S. Navy fighters tangled with were carrier based. The F6F was way easier to land on a carrier and had a better roll rate than the Corsair which was important in dogfighting. Yeah sure, the Corsair was faster but the F6F was 30 MPH faster than the Zero. This is why more F6F's were produced and why the Corsair ended up being used more as a land based ground support / fighter by the Marines.

@@GTX1123 Well as far as I know the USN started using the corsair after rejecting it for the reasons you mentioned to face the kamikaze threat and of course after the Royal Navy proved they could operate off of carriers. Im sure you've seen the documentary on this youtube channel, if not id recommend it. Id love to know though how US navy fighters like Wildcat, Hellcat or corsair would have faired say against the BF109 like say during the Battle of Britain or if say the US airforce had used them in place of the P40, P47 and P51?

@@jmcfintona999 The United States military was very good at adaptation in WW2. Roles for fighters can and did change throughout the war. The P47 was originally designed as very fast and very capable air to air fighter at high altitudes but ended up being far more effective in a ground attack role once the P51 was introduced into the ETO. The P51 couldn't withstand a fraction of the savage beating a P47 could take with it's incredibly heavy armor protection and its radial engine and the P47 was probably the best fighter bomber of the entire war in a dive. But the P51 had far far greater range as a bomber escort, better climb rate than the P47 and had all around better maneuverability. For the bulk of the action in the Pacific, the Hellcat was a no brainer as the USN's front line fighter for all of the reasons I've pointed out - it was the perfect Zero killer. But as the war drew to a close and Japan became desperate, the Corsair's faster speed and better climb rate to the F6F made it better at intercepting swarms of Kamikaze formations before they reached the fleet. USN pilots had more experience by that point (the Corsair was known as the Ensign killer) and all of the issues with the Corsair's bouncy landing gear had been sorted out by then as well. The Hellcat and especially the Wildcat would have been outclassed by the bf109 and the fw190 in the hands of experienced / capable Luftwaffe pilots but I think the Corsair would have done well against them due to it's blazing speed.

The Guadalcanal campaign was the ultimate "zero killer". The four carrier battles of 1942 killed off many skilled Japanese pilots, and even more trained mechanics and armorers. Guadalcanal ground down the remaining experienced Japanese naval air crews. By late 1943 the Essex-class carriers and the F6F faced less trained Japanese pilots, almost rookies. All that showed up in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. I think 1942 was the deciding year, and well-handled F4Fs killed off the Japanese "first team".

Glad you like them

A career distinguished mainly by avoiding fighting.

I don't think he avoided service. But the Army used him where he was most effective for their purposes. I don't think he liked it that much being a "Culver Commando" instead of other service. But he did his job well.

just like lawrence olivier and john wayne , he had a good war. unlike eddie albert , richard todd and lee marvin , ernie borgnine.

He would have been in the battle likely but for that he couldn't really see well and refused to be seen wearing glasses

@@douglasturner6153 No, he wanted to be in combat but his eyes weren't any good enough even for the infantry so, and he wouldnt wear glasses except to read in private

There were a few zeros sent to China as a test run early on. But they were not too common.

FYI, that novel is not written by him.

And then Who?​@@bagomoyo

Japan fought against the West to liberate Asia! The world is to meet like one family. Does this become the one that the fundamental principle of the national order was shown? To date, the national order is a strong eater of the weak. A strong country exploits a weak country. The place does not exploit the weakest family by the order of one u or the family. The house is a system in which the strong person works for the weak. The world becomes peaceful for the first time when the strongest country in the world has a system to work for weak country and weak people. Because Japan was strongly connected, and it matched the heart which gave birth to the man of heaven and earth, and it was said that it was necessary to work for weak people. What a big thing to do. The people of Japan must be shaken up. The strong country is a weak race. 　Daito A.D. Joint Declaration Suppression 〻 each country each country each country each country each country each country wo to get phase倚 Ri-so Fukete Manbang Kyoeen-no-Raku-o Kai Nisuruha World Peace Establishment Nomoto Yoshinari 然ルニ米英ハ自國ノ繁榮ノ爲ニハ他國家他民族ヲ抑壓シ特ニ大東亞ニ對シテハ飽クナキ侵略搾取ヲ行ヒ大東亞隷屬化ノ野望ヲ逞シウシ遂ニハ大東亞ノ安定ヲ根柢ヨリ覆サントセリ大東亞戰爭ノ原因ココニ存ス Daito Amoroi Kokuha Phase Alliance Daito 戰爭 Wo FinalIty Shi Daito Awa Eino 桎梏 Yori Liberation Ite Self-Existence Egowo All Ushi Sano Con code Ni Motoki Daito Ato Awo Construction Shiite World Peace No Establishment Niyo Senkotowo Period 1, Daito Aa each country each country ha cooperative Daito Ano stable wo securing Shido Yoshini motoku coexistence Co-Eino order wo construction su 1, Daito Each Country Ha Mutual Ni Independent Kyotachi-O Respect Shi Mutual Aid Atsu no Minoru Wo 擧Ge Daito Ayano Oya Wawo Establishment 1, Daito Each Country Each KuniHa Mutual Ni Sono Dentowo Respect Shi Each EthnicIty No Creativity Nobunobu Shi Daito Ayano Culture Wo Yangshu 1, Daito Each Country Each Country Ha Mutual Alliance Shi-no-濟 Exhibition Wo圖 Ri Oto Ayano Shigeeiwo 增Shinsu 1, Daito Each Country Ha Mankuni Tono Friendship Wo Atsuushi Racial Discrimination Wo Withdrawal 廢 Shipu ku Culture Wo Exchange Shishin Nde Resource Wo Open Shiite World No Luck Ni Tribute 獻

Yes, at first I thought I head Reagan-the-actor's voice. Got a second look, and sure enough.

Thankyou. Clearly I didn't look closely enough...

@@ArmouredCarriers Lol on RU-vid your having to contend with the most extreme plane-spotters who've access to the internet.

@@Veldtian1 It's all part of the fun. And also educational.

Oscar

Absolutely right. It was the longest-range WW2 naval fighter 1600 mi (2600 Km). It could fly from London to Berlin, escort and loiter and back to London for teatime in 1941!

@@NJTDover I heard that one of the Japanese aces commented that if the Luftwaffe had the Zero during the Battle of Britain the result may have been different.

@@NJTDover Very true, but that range (less weight, protection and a/c vulnerability) came at a cost. The cost, once someone got to know how to fight the zero, was lots of lost aircraft and dead pilots. That had a significant impact in the latter parts of the Pacific campaign.

@@bruceparr1678 that would have made a big difference - not having goering in charge would have been an even bigger impact though.

@@bruceparr1678 They may impact Battle of Britain but only if there were ENOUGH zeros. In August 1940 Zeros were still in pre-production and only 15 airframes were available for combat testing. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the number is 500. It is quite unfair to place a plane still not in formal service in front of the RAF in 1940 IMO.

What if the zero was fitted with a jet engine say from a Me262 jet engine?

And they didn’t see Zero’s because they were fighting the Army. The Army didn’t fly Zero’s…

@@allangibson2408 That is true. In accounts from that period of the war, almost every Japanese fighter was described by Allied pilots as a Zero.

Never flew, he was a professional actor. Most of his wartime recollections turned out to be scenes from movies he made either in the service or afterward. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Before the war, his main leading lady was Bonzo the Chimpanzee. Of this, the less said, the better*. This stuff is too good to make up. *From what I heard, when they tried to teach Bonzo ASL all he did was sign: "help meeee" over and over again. R.I.P. Bonzo. We hardly knew ye.

* Drach not main speaker

No, Drach is questioning an expert on the Zero. He os great. And his friend, "ArmouredCarrier" does great videos that always includes words from the men who were there.

I have some Japanese commentary in the video on the Zero

Not sure it really ever went up against them much. The heavies were mostly used against Japan itself in 1945. Mostly it had to contend with Blenheims, Bostons, Marauders and Beaufighters.

@@ArmouredCarriers I watched ‘Unbroken’ and thought that although Hollywood portrayal of US bomber defensive fire is maybe a wee bit over enthusiastic it would make sense that the Zero would struggle in that role. My mums next door neighbour was a dorsal gunner on a HP Halifax before being a POW and he gave me a ‘lesson’ in air gunnery. There’s two strategies. Firstly try to hit and destroy/disable the attacker by hitting it and secondly - and more effective - drive the attacker away by shooting a stream of fire across the attackers approach line and thus give them the choice of avoiding it and losing their attack line or fly through it and sustain some damage. For a Zero this would be much more dangerous. If you survive and succeed by not being hit back due to speed and manoeuvrability you’ve lost that advantage when attacking bombers. Good point of course, in that the main opposition certainly from British and Antipodean planes would have been light bombers with much reduced defensive armament. I read once that over the Indian Ocean a Fulmar observer caused a Zero to break off due to damage or injury to the pilot with a burst from his Lanchester that he’d brought along for moral value. (Other than that the zeros massacred the Fulmars. Actually, the Japanese dive bombers did a good job on the Fulmars too, alas. I love fulmars.....) Anyway, given the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of British aircraft at the start of the war with Japan I reckon that our best plane to deal with the Zero At That Time would have been.......... The Bolton Paul Defiant! No, really!! Great video as always. Love your stuff, mate.

@@ArmouredCarriers not entirely correct unfortunately; the Zero came up against early versions of the B-17 over the Philippines (D and E models) and later over New Guinea it encountered E and F model Forts as well as Liberators; they scored some successes but these must be seen in context; the defensive formations were nowhere near as tight as over Europe due to the low number of the planes that took part in that missions and what formations there were faced the risk of being further thinned out by flak fire; the armament of the Zero was comparable to early to mid war model BF-109s and those could manage to cripple bombers, if the pilot was competent and hit the few weak spots of the bombers, mostly the cockpit, fuel tanks or engines.... against B-29s though, the Zero with the exception of the M7 and M8 models maybe would have been a hopeless proposition as it was not fast enough to combat the Superforts effectively....

@@philw5587 Cheers for that. It was a reasonable theory not born out by reality, then. One other thing was ‘Old Winkles’ claim that the fifties and 20mm’s were better than the rifle cal. guns v the Zero. Not to contradict a ledge like Eric but I did read that a Kiwi pilot preferred his eight .303s against Zeros rather than the x2 Hispano and for .303s of later Spits. He reckoned the five-oh’s and cannon were “too much gun” and would just go through where as the smaller cal. Would “pepper the little bastards” and they’d fall apart.

@@geordiedog1749 I can understand why some pilots rather preferred the 0.303 to the heavier guns... Using deWilde incendiaries, the lighter guns could use another even more sinister fault of Japanese aircraft to their advantage-their lack of self sealing fuel tanks. So some hits of even the rifle calibre guns could surely wreak havoc with Japanese aircraft, if properly aimed into fuel tanks, or cockpits (that also did not feature much in the way of armored glass or other passive pilot protection. It was the tail gun of a USN bomber (a single 0.303 gun from the turret of an Avenger IIRC) that nearly killed Saburo Sakai when he misidentified the type and thought he was attacking Wildcats, while in reality he was flying directly into their cones of fire from the rear gunners...

The Pacific War will just be extended by at least 2 years with the same result of Japanese defeat.

Not a good comparison since they are not equal, it's like comparing the Devastator to the Avengers.

'Whistling Death' had the best kill ratio of the Pacific War,it was a beast of fighter,,that 2000+ HP engine and armour around pilot,when those 6 .50s with incendiary hit the Zero it became a Ronson lights first time!But the P-40 is my favourite the workhorse of the Pacific,it soaked up punishment and came back for more.

Well it was developed over 5 years later so...

It was me, sorry. I accidentally forgot to untick "publish to feed" while uploading. I'm using these videos for a different project to my history feed, and do not mean to spam you with unrelated content.

let's face it the american aircraft were getting shot down until they captured one and found its secrets and achilles heel lol

I'm not sure any of them were criticizing the engine. Mostly the references are of the airframe's light control surfaces freezing under the speed-induced air pressure.

@@ArmouredCarriers That was the initial assessment of the Technical Air Intelligence Units (TAIU) upon first recovering the aircraft and flight testing. So I'm busted in not actually watching this one through. I guess I'd better do that belatedly. BTW, I just wish one of the contemporary nerdy sounding AI computer voices out there on the tube now would take on Ronald Reagan's voice, lol.

Not that I have found yet, sorry.

All the Zero’s were very similar externally.

@@allangibson2408 Not really. There are many differences between the earlier and later variants of the Type 0 fighter. While the earlier models (such as A6M2s and M3s) had the Sakae Model 12 engines outfitted, later variants had the Sakae Model 21 engines. The Sakae Model 21 was significantly different in terms of weight and design. Its most telling feature was the pipes sticking out of the fuselage. If you pause at 2:21, you will see that no exhaust pipes are sticking out of the engine, meaning that this is either an A6M2 or an A6M3. And at 4:17, this variant would be an A6M5. However, with a bigger engine, later models sacrificed operational range and maneuverability for a slight increase in speed. This change would prove futile as most allied fighters in the closing part of the war were still much faster and Japan did not have the resources. Another telling difference between the A6M5s and older versions is the wings. Older variants, such as the A6M3s, had much longer wings, which could be folded upwards for storage on carriers. This can be seen at 2:18, which depicts one of the earlier models taking off. The A6M5s, and some models of the A6M3, had much shorter wings, which improved roll rate and reduced weight, at the cost of lift in the main wings, lessening maneuverability. This feature can be distinguished directly because of the folding sections of the wings. Variants like the A6M3 had an extension of the wings past the ailerons, models similar to the A6M5 had her wings end at the ailerons, which can be seen at 4:19. Although these differences are minuscule, they do help in distinguishing between the numerous models of the Type 0 fighter.

They did not like the desert conditions much,the P-40 was the workhorse.Look up that Aussie ace,he shot down about 6 Hun fighters in his first few days,he was shot down twice and got back to his lines,ended up on Typhoons around D-Day tough hard case bugger...

The Spitfires that eventually made it to Australia then took a long time to be adapted to the conditions, and even then, many pilots preferred their old P40s for dependability and ruggedness.

Firstly they are elderly gentlemen so some understanding would be warranted and secondly even a Texan should be able to turn on closed captions and read the subtitles.