Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "Who were technologically superior? The Axis or Allies in WW2?" video.

Zero was beautiful aircraft that did it best to hide Japanese main weakness - lack of strong enough aircraft engines. Engines, aircraft or tank, were main reason for success or failure of certain designs.
7
@Pete-tq6in Well, nope. Hurricane did not have large engine power advantage over Zero or Ki-43, and there were not that many Hurricanes either. Pilot training certainly had effect, but when US and British got large quantity of bigger engined planes, writing was on the wall for Japanese. Yes, we can find examples of lower-powered plane getting a kill against higher-powered, but these are exceptions. Statistically, P-38 dominated Ki-43 and Zero, thus outcome of the war was what it was.
2
Zero was not better, it was a beautiful aircraft that sacrificed much to hide Japanese inferiority in aircraft engines (and engines in general). Overall, Japanese had better training at the beginning of the war, more experience and frankly better combat spirit.
2
@silentbob5566 FW-190 simply had powerful engine, and Japanese had nothing similar. Later in the war BMW 801 became just another engine as other catch up, so LW lost their edge. Simple as that.
1
@silentbob5566 Reducing drag when you have a powerful radial engine was a task solved by almost everyone. US had Corsair and P-47, USSR had La-5 and La-7, Japan had Ki-84 and N1K ... Main thing was to have available that powerful radial engine in sufficient quantity and quality. Japanese did not have that early in the war, hence Zero and Ki-43, beautiful planes that sacrificed a lot to achieve speed and maneuverability .
1
@Pete-tq6in Well it would not, it was slower and could not climb as well as Bf-109E . Only advantage it had was range. In a hypothetical scenario where you replace Bf-109 with Zero on 1 to 1 basis, Hurricanes and Spitfires would have easier time concentrating on the bombers from a dive.
1
@Pete-tq6in Except nobody in his right mind was doing turning combat in 1940, and Zero could not either climb or dive with Bf-109. Historically, Spitfire Mk V made a short work out of the Zero when they encountered over Australia hem simply by ability to be faster and dive and climb better.
1
@Pete-tq6in You are deluding yourself :D Climb rate of Bf-109 E was over 3500ft / min. Maybe you misread German data which mentions over 1000 meters per minute ? In any case, Zero was nowhere near that with climb rate well bellow 3000ft/min. Nor it could dive and make a decent zoom climb as it was too light. As for Darwin - yep, bombers WERE the main target :D Try to guess why - it has something to with them actually bombing people bellow :D
1
@Pete-tq6in What other sources ? All I could find is 5min 55sec to 16,400ft and 7min 27sec to 19,685ft. You are deluding yourself .Zero was a light plane with low wing loading. It was built for carrier landings, extended range and horizontal turn fight. Under no circumstances could it match high wing loading, high-powered European land based fighters with relatively small fuel tanks. Spitfire pilots could not fight Zero as they fought Bf-109, but it was not necessary to do so. They were faster, could dive better and climb better.
1
@Pete-tq6in Obviously you do not understand basic physics. Lower wing loading means more drag - you design aircraft with low wing loading (large wings) when you want good handling at lower speeds. Zero had that, at the expense of mediocre performance at higher speeds. Higher wing loading sacrifices performance at lower speeds for good acceleration and top speed. Historically fighter planes moved from low wing loading (biplanes) to higher wing loading as better engines became available . I.e. speed , acceleration and climb were more essential than horizontal maneuverability . This is the reason why BF-109 or Spitfire were considered more modern than Zero. Even Japanese realized that and at the end of the war developed new types with higher wing loading and more powerful engines.
1
@Pete-tq6in Study some physics, kid :D Low wing loading improves lift at low speeds. But it also increases drag. Overall it is a tradeoff, increase lift and drag for low speed handling, or decrease them for high speeds and climb. To have fast climbing interceptor you typically design high-wing loading aircraft (like Bf-109, one of the fastest climbers in WW2) , with strong engine. After the war this trend went even further with planes like MiG-21 and F-104 - very high wing loading, powerful jet engines. Such aircraft achieve certain speed and then maintain it while climbing. And I newer said that doubling your engine power doubles your climb rate :D In your hypothetical scenario only advantage Zero had is its range. But they could not prevent either Spitfires or Hurricanes from powering past them and simply attacking the bombers. Historically such things did happen over Darwin, in New Guinea, Guadalcanal etc ... Allied pilots simply climbed up and dove on bombers.
1
@Pete-tq6in All sides over claimed in WW2 , Japanese were notorious for that. This does not change the fact that Spitfire was superior in performance to Zero. Your knowledge of physics is lacking, and so is the data to support it :D What you do not understand is why everyone (including Japanese) from WW1 era to jet era was moving in direction of higher wing-loading , not lower. And the answer is simple, it is explained perfectly with Mig-21 and F-104 : each new generation of aircraft HAD MORE THRUST, because they got more powerful engines. Thus, each new generation of aircraft required relatively smaller wings (i.e. higher wing loading) to generate same lift, cause they were doing this at HIGHER SPEED. And what did they gain with higher wing loading is better climb and acceleration, because they had LESS DRAG. As for Bf-109 E, in 1940 it was THE BEST climbing aircraft, better than Spitfire. This actually helped them to make Battle of Britain more even contest where Germans actually had some chance to win. Simply, German escorts could climb fast to meet British interceptors who were usually flying above German bombers. Plus, Bf-109 could dive faster and catch Spitfires (and Hurricanes) while these were attacking German bombers. Zero, in all its beauty, could not do the same. Only realistic advantage Zero had over Bf-109 was much better range, but considering that most industrial targets were in fact in range of Luftwaffe, this would not affect this by much. Overall, both Bf-109 and Spitfire were made with European theatre in mind, while Zero was designed for vast expanses of the ocean.
1
@Pete-tq6in In 1940 Zero was still in its prototype form :P First batch was actually being produced while Battle of Britain was unfolding (Model 11 with 950 hp engine) . Therefore, if you want to compare, do that with contemporary model of Spitfire.
1
@Pete-tq6in Battle of Britain was in 1940. In 1940 contemporary Zero would be few dozen of early model 11, which was not in action over Pearl Harbor, being replaced by improved Model 21. As I said, it had 950 hp engine, while Mark IIa you mentioned had 1,135 hp engine. Obviously, this early Zero was no match for IIa . Even first version with 1030 hp would be a handful . Overall, early Zeroes were superior to I-16 , still at least one was shoot down over China.
1
@Pete-tq6in If you are indeed British, you should take a bit more pride in your country designs :D Spitfire was aerodynamically cleaner (inline compared to radial engine) and much faster than Zero. It also climbed better (unless you believe your own invented figures about Zero) . Early Zeros had problems with engines and propellers , which made them even slower in operational service. Finally, Spitfire large wing reduced its wing loading, so it was comparable with Zero in that regard :D
1
@Pete-tq6in I feel that you, like many people in the West presently, are afraid to tell the truth and feel pride in your countries achievements, in order not to be attacked by lunatic left. Truth is simple - Japanese technology was inferior in WW2. No ifs and buts about it. They did make wonders with what they had, but everyone (including US and UK heads of state) considered them as secondary threat compared to Germany. Spitfire had its limitations and it is true that Soviet pilots preferred P-39 to it (higher wing-loading being one of the reasons !) , similar to Australians and P-40. However, there are reasons why Japanese themselves considered Zero limited in many areas, constantly increased its weight throughout the war and introduced new types .
1
@Pete-tq6in No it did not :D You are perhaps referring to A6M3 Zero that had 1130 hp engine. But if you are using this model, compare it with Spitfire V or even IX . And as I said, in 1940, and even in 1941, there were far less Zeros than Bf-109s . Japanese manufacturing capability was never great.
1
@TIKhistory Sorry, but the idea of Germans being better armed for the war is nonsense. British rearmament started in 1934, French in 1936. Soviets practically never stopped arming themselves, in 1930s they had very large tank fleet. Major advantage of Germans was innovative tactics, not based on WW1 experience sine they lost it. Instead they focused on war of movement based on radio.
1
@bassamalfayeed1384 By losing the war Germans realized they would have to move away from WW1 tactics that brought them defeat. British and French mostly stayed with what worked the last time, plus some slight improvements.
1