This is the Mitsubishi Zero.
It's a plane.
It's pretty fast.
Fast enough to fuck your fleet.
>>30379930
What a flammer.
This is the Tb-3.
It's a bomber.
It's pretty slow.
Slow enough to fuck up your day.
This is the Little Boy.
It is a nuclear bomb.
It is pretty big.
Big enough to fuck up your war effort.
>zero
>fast
Maybe compared to the Oscar.
>>30379930
> zero
> fast
yeah no
>>30379930
>560 km/h at 6000m
>fast
My grandfather shot at those things
>>30379930
Hi there.
>>30380002
>>30380322
Those are actually chinamen, check the markings.
>>30380234
My favorite fighter of the war.
The Hellcat really doesn't get as much love as she deserves.
This is a ME 163
It's a rocket glider
It's really fast
Other than that it's shit tbqh fåm
Will the fool that was defending IJN damage control show up here and defend the A6M's lack of self-sealing tanks & armor, as well as the general disregard for pilot survival?
>>30380322
CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
>>30380414
That's because it's completely overshadowed by best plane
>>30380934
Fun Fact: The Vought F4U Corsair had the biggest engine, biggest propeller, and biggest wing of any naval fighter in the world at the time.
>>30380934
I like the F4U too but I just like the F6F better.I admit I am biased towards Grumman aircraft. My favorite plane by Vought was the F-8 Crusader.
>>30381004
It was too big when it came out. The USN didn't want it on carriers due to size and visibility issues, so the USMC took them and ended up loving them.
>>30380110
Well, the Oscar was fast enough to catch and kill B-29s, so...
>>30379930
The Zero wasn't fast, and it was not capable of fucking up a fleet as it was a fighter armed with 20mm cannons as its heaviest weaponry.
It IS a plane.
>>30379930
This is a Grumman F6F Hellcat
It too is a plane
It's faster than a Zero
It can carry bombs and rockets to fuck your fleet
It has a 11-1 kill ratio over the Zero
Bigblueblanket.jpg
>>30383142
I reverse image searched that. Really weird. I honestly never knew that carriers had catapults in the hangar.
Kind of a useless feature unless it's for if the flight deck is somehow obscured.
>>30380597
The A6M was a genius plane, a complete act of crazyness in warplane form, but once the trick was out of the hat, the japs failed to put a fix on it.
Still, gotta respect such a crazy vision made real. I don't think it needs damage control, anyone defending its huge shortcomings is retarded or ignorant. Or both.
>>30380384
Nope, they're Russians. The marking on the side of the fuselage is a dead giveaway; the Chinks never had any markings on their TB-3s outside of the wings.
>>30383387
I think is was so they could launch while anchored.
>>30383142
>>30383387
>>30383519
Did any naval designers think of arranging multiple cats under decks so that the carrier could crap out a ton of fighters in seconds ala BSG?
>>30383485
They fixed as soon as they had a reliabke engine that could handle the increased weight. Problem is, Japanese industry was not good at high performance aircraft engines and the teething issues took a long time to sort out.
>>30383583
just wait until a cat shot goes wrong under the main deck
>>30383596
Yeah, 40's fire control tech + avgas + bombs would make the thing a disaster waiting to happen, I'd still like to see if anyone drew a plan.
>>30383617
Didn't US carriers have armored decks and open hangars so that gas wouldn't build up inside?
>>30383693
The had wooden decks (The British had metal) along with open hangars and system that could fill the fuel systems with carbon dioxide to prevent explosion.
>>30383819
US carriers built after 1942 had armored decks. So about half of the Essex-class.
>>30380111
>> yeah no
choose one or the other - yeah or no
>>30381004
It also had a big payload rivaling that of a B-17
>>30383844
uhh no, the midways were the first, and they were 1945 ships.
>>30381059
It's more of the landing issue. It was quite difficult to land unlike the docile Hellcat. Plus, they already have an equally great aircraft which is the Hellcat and adding the Corsairs would make logistics complicated. However, when the Brits proved it can be landed without much of a hassle and with the immediate needs of more fighters aboard a carrier, the Corsair was finally added on carriers although on small groups as the Hellcat was still the carriers' premier fighter.
>>30383387
>usless
OH SHIT, incoming aircraft that our early radars didn't pickup thanks to clouds
SCRAMBLE EVERYTHING!!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!!!!
>>30381004
>biggest engine
The Hellcat did too. So did the Thunderbolt (though that's an air force fighter). Good ol' PW R2800.
>biggest propeller
Yep. Corsair had the F6F by three inches (13'-4" against 13'-1")
>wing
The Corsair's gull wing had greater area.
Not trying to have a pissing contest. I was just interested by your trivia. It was all true up until 1943.
To show my good faith, have my favorite Corsair pic
This is a Hurricane
It's an outdated plane (by 1940)
It's not too fast
But it's got 4 20mm guns
Good enough to fuck up your air attack
>>30383693
>armored decks
There isn't just one deck, sempai. All US carriers had armored decks. They just didn't have armored *flight* decks.
>>30379930
Wow you missed like all the good parts
The Mitsubishi A6M had a low wing loading, which made for excellent handling characteristics. The wing was constructed as a single unit, not in several pieces as the american planes were, which made the wings stronger (at the expense of production time, which took longer). It had a great range for a fighter, which made long distance attacks (like Pearl Harbor) and better combat ranges possible. It was overall a great aircraft
>>30385850
>It was overall a great aircraft
...for surprise attacks on unsuspecting enemy when you prep time, such as Pearl Harbor, Malaya, and Luzon. Its range didn't give it any significant edge in realistic battle scenarios.
>>30385850
All of that at the cost of the safety factors on its structural components. It was fragile, with several single-point failure points where one hit could destroy the entire aircraft. It lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, making it a firetrap.
It also had a relatively low-power engine too.
>>30386203
To be fair, the entire thing was basically designed to make the absolute best they could out of the Sakae engine, which was basically the best engine they had at that time.
Of course, it'd prove to be a terribly short-sighted move, and the rest is history.
*tips Thach Weave*
>>30386327
(Different poster than you replied to)
What was an excellent design at its birth was left mostly the same throughout the war.
The Japanese underestimated what the Americans would come up with in terms of aircraft and did not recognize the benefit of keeping pilots alive (And allowing them to return home to train newer pilots). This lead to inferior planes being flown by inferior pilots.
>>30384817
>PW R2800
DOUBLE WASP
DOUBLE WASP
>>30385927
I'm not saying it was above all others, I'm saying it was a well-designed aircraft that performed great
>>30386203
Why don't you source me up on those underpowered and weak structure claims. It had 950hp, and for that aircraft it was perfectly fine. According to Wikipedia the Japanese methods of airframe construction produced a very strong structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero
>>30386397
I love these things
>>30386534
They are nice. Just have to love the name Wildcat too.
A very good example of a plane not being the absolute best, but managing to be successful through pilots using its strengths and developing their own tactics.
>>30386522
>950 hp
Underpowered compared to its contemporaries. The Allies had thousand hp engines. It did not matter as the aircraft was lightweight which brings us to
>lightweight construction
This, plus lack of armor would mean its very fragile once hit by enemy fire. Also, the ailerons would often stiffen up at high speeds, leading to poor maneuverability. The Zero cannot even dive as fast as its Allied counterparts lest it'll tear its own wings apart due to its lightweight construction.
You can deduce these from your very own source.
>>30386662
It wasn't build as a divebomber, it was built as a fighter. Aerodynamically it was great, but armor-wise it was lacking. The aileron issue is not as bad as it sounds. If you pull aggressive maneuvers above the maneuvering speed, you'll damage the airframe anyways. I am also getting different engine specs for different sources. Some say the Nakajima Sakai 21, 14 cylinder two row radial, 1,320 hp; some say the Sakae 12 with 950hp. Either way, the hp/mass ration was better than the F6F Hellcat, so I really doubt it was underpowered. Also, weight has a significant impact on the aircraft's performance. When the Hellcat weighs 3000 lbs more than the Zero, a few extra horsepower isn't very helpful.
>>30386829
>It wasn't built as a divebomber
Literally what. Diving is part of air combat maneuvers. Did you expect fighter aircraft to just make a couple of fancy loop de loops?
>if you pull aggressive maneuvers above the maneuvering speed, you'll damage the airframe anyways
Yes and guess what's the trump card of Allied aircraft? High-speed maneuverability. They can engage and re-engage you at will simply by climbing and diving, something that the Zero has difficulty doing so. It's only saving grace was superior climb rate against earlier generations of Allied fighters
>Some say the Nakajima Sakai 21, 14 cylinder two row radial, 1,320 hp; some say the Sakae 12 with 950hp
All did not do much on the Zero. Do remember that the Zero has lightweight construction therefore slapping a more powerful engine won't give it a much needed boost in speed.
>Either way, the hp/mass ration was better than the F6F Hellcat, so I really doubt it was underpowered. Also, weight has a significant impact on the aircraft's performance. When the Hellcat weighs 3000 lbs more than the Zero, a few extra horsepower isn't very helpful.
The Sakae engine had 950 hp. The Double Wasp had 2000 hp and that's not just a few extra horses. The engine alone is underpowered and what saved it was the low weight of the Zero. However, the Hellcat is still superior in all aspects save for low speed maneuverability and range despite weighing 3000 lbs more.
>>30387021
You're such an armchair ace
It was not built as a dedicated divebomber like other aircraft were; I have never heard of the wings failing on the Zero because of a dive. Air combat maneuvers will include all sorts of turns, descents, and climbs, and it did all of these well. The Zero had exceptional maneuverability and climb rate, which is exactly what an offensively-designed fighter calls for. The bigger engine (Sakae 21 or 31) gave the Zero an excellent climb/acceleration rate, which was definitely an advantage. I still don't understand your 'underpowered' claim. It was in no sense underpowered. Read the Wikipedia page (>>30386522), even the Allied forces praised the Zero's performance in the Pacific. I'm not saying it was better than any aircraft out there, I'm stating the fact that it was a well designed and great aircraft.
>>30387153
Just because it can dive doesn't mean it's a dive bomber. Why don't you go read some books about fighter aircraft? Dives are used to increase airspeed. Have you ever heard of exchanging altitude for speed vice/versa? Guess how can they accomplished.
>I have never heard of the wings failing on the Zero because of a dive
That's because their pilots are not stupid enough to put an aircraft in such situation. Ever heard of never exceed speed?
>Air combat maneuvers will include all sorts of turns, descents, and climbs, and it did all of these well
Yes and? Guess how the Hellcat fared too.
>The bigger engine (Sakae 21 or 31) gave the Zero an excellent climb/acceleration rate, which was definitely an advantage
Against older aircraft yes.
> I still don't understand your 'underpowered' claim
>Horikoshi believed that the greatest flaw in his design was its use of a relatively low-power aircraft engine, the 950hp (708 kW) Nakajima Sakae. But this could not be helped. Japan's limited access to alloying metals caused a shortage of the high-tensile steel used in more powerful American aircraft engines, and in any case a larger engine would simply have torn the fragile Zero apart
even the Allied forces praised the Zero's performance in the Pacific. I'm not saying it was better than any aircraft out there, I'm stating the fact that it was a well designed and great aircraft.
In the early stages of WWII yes but overall? No. Technology evolves. This aircraft probably deserved its place in early 1940-1s. By 1942 and beyond, it was already showing its age.
>>30379987
whats the point of camoing your plane white if youre going to put giant red bullseyes all over it
>>30386829
>The aileron issue is not as bad as it sounds
It was.
>>30380322
jesus fucking christ
>>30380322
This video is often correctly described as early paratrooper training. It's actually pilots realizing they're flying a Russian aircraft.
>>30387216
Well aware of this shit, I got a Commercial SEL w/Instrument and doing multi training currently.
My point is that the Zero may not have the speed of its Allied counterparts, but it certainly had the maneuverability to hold its own. Dogfights don't happen at Vne. Once you initiate a turning fight, all the energy goes out the window and slow-speed handling prevails.
One of the problems that damned the plane was the shortage of engines, specifically more powerful engines, and steel. If fitted with the Sakae 21 or 31 which had 1100hp+, it could definitely put up a fight.
This is the masked man.
His name is Bane.
He's pretty big.
Big enough to crash your plane.
>>30387373
>Once you initiate a turning fight, all the energy goes out the window and slow-speed handling prevails.
They can't scissor to save their fuckin lives. Within three reversals they're skidding out in front of you like a lumbering mongoloid elephant, it's fuckin great
>>30387373
Turning fight isn't in the minds of most Allied pilots by then and resorted to boom and zoom tactics instead. What's the point of initiating a turning fight if the enemy won't fall for it anyway?
>If fitted with the Sakae 21 or 31 which had 1100hp+, it could definitely put up a fight.
You certainly missed the previous posts about how a more powerful engine won't matter. The bigger engines only provided a small boost in performance.
>>30387408
>The bigger engines only provided a small boost in performance.
It was bigger than that, but the thing is that the light airframe really limited the G-loading it could pull, the snap-shots it could afford to give away and a lot of other things. No amount of extra engine power could really compensate for that.
>>30387163
First one to talk gets to stay on my carrier.
>>30387408
>bigger engines only provide a small boost in performance
Talking right out of your ass there. They absolutely do provide better performance
Why would a turning fight ever be disregarded? "Boom and zoom" tactics only work when you are on the offensive against an unsuspecting target. As soon as you have lost the element of surprise it turns into a conventional fight.
>>30387380
I'll give you, the roll rate wasn't great. But once banked, they could certainly turn.
>>30387415
>>30387448
The A6M3 with the more powerful Sakae engine only gave it a boost of 11 km/h, at the cost of 1000 km of range. The A6M5, the most effective variant had a boost of 32 km/h.
Not a really good trade-off, especially if dive/climb rate and protection remain largely unchanged
>Why would a turning fight ever be disregarded
Because Allied pilots were actually advised not to attempt to dogfight a Zero?
>>30387448
>Why would a turning fight ever be disregarded?
>The Second World War shattered a number of other illusions about the design and employment of fighters. During the First World War, fighters were optimized for maneuverability, and tactical doctrine was based on the turning fight or dogfight. Fighter pilots attempted tight maneuvers to put themselves on the undefended rear of enemy fighters, known as the enemy's "six". Pilots sought opportunities for a low deflection shot, in which the target was moving in almost the same direction as their own aircraft, because most pilots were very poor at estimating how much to lead a target that was moving at a relative angle greater than 15 degrees. Many airmen assumed that air combat in the Second World War would simply be a faster, deadlier version of the same game
>However, a number of fighter experts, such as Claire Chennault, believed that dogfighting was an obsolete tactic. They noted that, even in the First World War, most kills were achieved by surprise and most dogfights ended in a draw. Chennault perfected hit-and-run tactics that relied on speed, firepower, and ruggedness rather than outstanding maneuverability, and which took maximum advantage of surprise when it could be achieved. Such tactics would prove effective against such outstandingly maneuverable Japanese aircraft as the Zero and the Oscar. While a nimble fighter could roll and turn quickly at low speed, at high speed its controls tended to "stiffen" badly and it lost maneuverability. The Spitfire, for example, could roll at 90 degrees per second at speeds below 240 mph (390 km/h), but its ailerons stiffened so badly at maximum speed that it could roll only a few degrees per second. Furthermore, tight maneuvers quickly bled off speed and altitude, which gave the advantage to less maneuverable but more powerful aircraft which were more capable of maintaining high speed
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/i/Fighters.htm
>>30387460
The A6M3 did not just change the engine, but the entire plane. The CG was changed when engine mounts were changed, the wing was redesigned, additional ammunition increased weight, all in addition to the new engine. Its not really a fair comparison to the original.
>>30387460
It doesn't matter what they were 'advised' to do. In the event the surprise attack turned into a dogfight, it was outmaneuver and outgun the enemy or get killed. Why were they advised not to dogfight a Zero?
>>30387470
>top-down attacks from behind are more effective than a straight dogfight
Wow, who would've guessed. Lets just all rely on one offensive tactic, no need for BFM
>>30387506
They were advised not to turn-fight a zero. They could certainly dogfight if they wanted.
It's generally a good idea to never dogfight if you can help it. That's too much like a fair fight. Your goal in warfare is to win, not to fight fair. This is what made Ritchofen an ace; he was a strategist, not a skilled brawler.
>>30387506
>The A6M3 did not just change the engine, but the entire plane.
It maybe an entire plane, but it didn't improve much from its base version. It's basically a heavier, slightly faster Zero.
>In the event the surprise attack turned into a dogfight, it was outmaneuver and outgun the enemy or get killed. Why were they advised not to dogfight a Zero.
Pilots were instructed that if ever they got a Zero on their tail, the best thing to do is to roll to the right and dive away.
>no need for BFM
BFM just became secondary during the war. It was found out that top-down attacks were more superior and effective. Why would you gimp yourself and do the traditional tactic instead when you have an easier, more effective way during air combat?
>>30380597
We can only hope, that tread was pure entertainment
>>30383583
Yes, but it were of marginal usefulness. The improved seakeeping of the hurricane bow was considered more useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi#Flight_deck_arrangements
![635916189311953477-287416026_crushing-disappointment[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wN3cl8s.jpg "635916189311953477-287416026_crushing-disappointment[1].jpg")
>>30382702
>>30380414
>>30380934
>>30380417
>>30385850
>>30386397
>>30386522
>>30386534
>>30386584
at the end of the day, we're just spawn yearning for glory.
>yfw you'll never fly a legend
>>30379969
no self sealing tanks, a flamer indeed.
Jesus Christ now both sides of this stupid argument are talking out of their respective asses
>>30385215
That looks like the mk 1 with 8 .303 Brownings. The 20mm Hispanos stuck out the leading edge.
>>30387227
It's not camo it's identification.
For when friendly fire is a bigger threat than enemy action.
