Comments by "" (@johnshepherd8687) on "The A6M Naval Carrier Fighter - Zero or Hero?" video.

It was pilot experience that made the difference. If you listened closely there was only one experienced pilot in a Spit and did really well. The Zero was not a Mustang. Flying against experienced Luftwaffe pilots would have not gone well. The BF109 was a better aircraft than the Zero
7
Splash the Zeros!!! I knew Emory Brown who was flying the Tomcat that went into the flat spin. That was real. He almost punched out. He also got into to trouble when NIS (before it was NCIS) discovered a bunch of goodies in his garage.
2
Hit run tactics originated in WWI
2
@bruceparr1678 The 109 was faster and could out dive the Zero. It was also more durable. Having a longer range is nice but not a factor in an engagement. What made the Mustang superior in combat was its performance.
2
Your analysis of the structural integrity of The Zero is fine as it goes for an intact aircraft but its light weight reduced its ability to retain it's structural integrity after it takes damage everything else equal. At the other ectreme you have the P-47 that shows verbuilding builds in damage tolerance. I highly recommend Professor Robert Ball's "The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design" if you haven't already read it already .
1
@justinpyke1756 Point taken but poking holes with a .50 BMG in the airframe particularly the main structural members reduces the g-loading before failure. The fact that the Zero had other serious vulnerablility issues merely covered up the lack of airframe damage tolerance. Fix those issues, which the Japanese did and watch the airplane fall apart when it took hits to its main structural elements when under high g-loading.
1
@justinpyke1756 So, the conventional wisdom about the Zero's fragility in combat is correct. The Zero was a brilliantly executed design for a flawed concept of operation that relied on pilot superiority for aircraft survivability and that was something that was going quickly disapate as time went on. The Japanese lacked the technical means to meet their requirements with a survivable aircraft. One wonder if they would have done better by trading range for ensuring more of their pilots would make it back home.
1
@justinpyke1756 Combat fragility is more than its structural integrity. It is the Zero's set of vulnerabilities. Survivability is the interaction of vulnerability and exposure (susceptibility). The Zero proved to have inferior survivability in combat.
1
You are right. This subject had been done over and over again. The Zero was no better than contemporary allied or German fighters when flown against experienced pilots who understood the strengths and weaknesses of both aircraft. By 1942, when the Zero came up against the P-38 and later the F4U it was totally outclassed. What made the Zero so formidable in the early war was superior aviators flying against inexperienced allied pilots.
1
@bkjeong4302 it was early in 1943 so you have me by a few weeks. And I did say later
1
The P-38, P-47 and F4U all flew before Pearl Harbor (1940-41) Each was superior to the BF109. The Corsair was supposed to replace the Wildcat but failed American carrier qualification. The Fleet Air Arm didn't notice that. The Corsair is arguably the best fighter of WWII. It was the last piston engined fighter built by any nation with the 470mph -5 produced for the Korean war.
1