Unbelievable battles

[ParkCungHee]

If the Zero had better armor, and Japan had mass production, the Zeros would probably kick ass until perhaps 1950. (Or maybe in 1945 if the US used the A-bomb and Japan surrendered like in OTL)

Certainly not. I'm as big of a Fan of the Zero as any, but even by 1943 the Aircraft was outdated. The idea that the Zero, even with better armor (which probably would have hindered the strengths the Zero did have), could have made it into th era of F6Fs, nevermind of F-86 Sabres, is absurd. Aviation technology was moving at a pace completely unparrelled in the history of flight. Combat aircraft's production was counted in months, rather then years.

 

[Antilogic]

Well of course the Hellcat and Corsair were superior aircraft, they entered production two years after the Zero. But at the time it was introduced, it was arguably the best fighter aircraft in the world, and inarguably the best carrier-based aircraft. This was the first carrier-based aircraft that could match a land based aircraft in combat, most of those underpowered American planes were top of the line when the Zero was introduced. Its more fair to compare the Zero to the P-39 Airacobra which still was introduced a full year after the Zero, yet lagged far behind it. But the great technological leap the Zero made was in its range. The real limiting factor on long range missions for the Zero wasn't the limitations of the Aircraft, but the pilot. This aircraft could fly almost exactly 2000 miles, completely outstripping any enemy aircraft.
In the initial months of the war, the Allies overestimated Japanese airpower greatly, because fighters could be brought from bases so far away for any one operation, it seemed that they had much greater numbers.

The fact is, the Japanese never really recovered the aviation technology advantage, despite having built a better plane to start with. You are (very) correct in that the Zero had amazing range--that is one of its most desirable features.

However, I have the feeling that many "common" folk tend to overrate the Zero--I've heard people often boast it was the best plane of the war. I say it was a good aircraft for what it was used for, but just that--good. Not the greatest.

Saying the Zero could match even the F4F in firepower, though, doesn't strike me as correct. The Zero had only two guns, whereas the American planes typically had six. Unless those were truly amazing guns (which I haven't studied, so maybe some one else can enlighten me), I would say the Zero was outgunned compared to even its contemporary American designs. To give more perspective on the Wildcat, the Hellcat is essentially the same plane with a much better engine. The basic design, armor, and armament are remarkably similar. The one major disadvantage of early American planes was maneuvering against the Zero, and once they had the engine capacity to come close, the air war went completely to the Americans' favor.

 

[Adler17]

The Zero had two MGs and two 20 mm cannons. That were indeed a bigger firepower for the Zero than for the F4F.

Adler

 

[Steph]

A6M zero=
2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns in the engine cowling
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon in the wings

F4F Wildcat
Guns: 6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 240 rounds/gun

F4U Corsair
6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 400 rounds per gun or
4× 20mm AN/M2 cannons

 

[budweiser]

Anti-logic, I believe the Hellcats first came online in Nov 1943. That is a fairly large gap in time between Dec, 1941. Almost 2 years actually inwhich the USN had to rely on the F4F as its main fighter. By Dec 1943, Midway and the entire Guadalcanal campaign was over and the USA was starting to take back islands starting with Tarawa. That's when the Hellcat came on the scene. The reason they performed so well against the Zero moreso than the engine is because they were specifically designed to destroy Zeros. Earlier in the war, an entire intact Zero fell into Americas hands and they were able to restore it to flight and figure out its weaknesses. They result was the Hellcat.

 

[onejayhawk]

A6M zero=
2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns in the engine cowling
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon in the wings

F4F Wildcat
Guns: 6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 240 rounds/gun

F4U Corsair
6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 400 rounds per gun or
4× 20mm AN/M2 cannons

Do you have rate of fire for the Zero?

One thing that is possibly a part of the equation is the F4F's relative ability to absorb hits, without significant loss of fighting ability vs. the Zero's fragility. Perhaps the fragility is UNDERstated. Certainly, on paper the firepower is on par, but the memory of lightly armed Zeros is too pervasive not to have some basis in fact. Consider how the Zero fared against a tough, fast, long range P-38, another plane famous for surviving hits.

At low speed, P-38 had real problems with a Zero's ability to dogfight. At speed, especially in pursuit, the firepower ruled. Granted, in 1942 the Lightning was in limited production, but it played a significant role in the Guadalcanal saga.

J

 

[Antilogic]

I always considered the fragility of the Zero its greatest drawback. The fact that a single well-placed shot (right behind the pilot in the center of the plane) has a very high probability of causing a fuel explosion, compared to American planes that can take a few dozen rounds and keep flying...

It just strikes me as an incredible drawback. I'll say its good, but for that reason, I won't say its great.

 

[e350tb]

I'[ve got three:

Unbelievably DEADLY: Stalingrad. 200,000 dead Germans and 1,000,000 dead Russians is terrible.

Unbelievably STUPID: The Charge of the Light Brigade. 600 cavalrymen charging at cannon. As that Frenchman said, Ït's magnificent, but it isn't war. It's stupidity".

Unbelievably BRILLIANT: Operation Overlord. Absoloutly brilliant.

 

[Antilogic]

Unbelievably STUPID: The Charge of the Light Brigade. 600 cavalrymen charging at cannon. As that Frenchman said, Ït's magnificent, but it isn't war. It's stupidity".

What's hilarious is that the Light Brigade charged the wrong artillery. Apparently, they didn't notice their actual target due to the layout of the battlefield, and instead attacked the more well-defended enemy cannon.

 

[Rossiya]

This isn't really a battle, but still an amazing story of "victory out of few".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Nazaire_Raid

 

[1889]

Reminds me of the Zeebrugge Raid in WWI. Not all that unbelievable really but I just like WWI commando operations because you don't hear about them much.

The operation began badly however. The prepared smokescreen to cover the Vindictive as it landed its troop contents proved ineffective in the face of unexpected winds.

Under crippling fire the old cruiser moored in the wrong location, its guns effectively out of action. However an old submarine did destroy the mole connecting the bridge to the shore after it exploded containing explosives.

The loss of the Vindictive's guns was significant: without their crucial support the shore batteries remained untaken. In turn their sustained fire also disabled a further three ancient British cruisers - Thetis, Iphigenia and Intrepid - packed with concrete and which had moved into the inner harbour, preventing them from halting and scuttling themselves in their correct pre-assigned locations at the narrow entrance to the canal.

If the raid upon Zeebrugge produced initially unclear results, the smaller attack upon Ostend was an unequivocal failure however. Two old cruisers, intended as blockships, failed to reach the harbour entrance. A subsequent attempt made to cripple Ostend similarly failed on 9 May.

Represented at the time as a tremendous British victory by Allied propaganda (with the consequence that its devisor Sir Roger Keyes was ennobled), and by the Germans as a demonstration of their success in holding each port, the Zeebrugge raid did not in reality hinder German operations from either port for more than a few days.

Some 500 British casualties were incurred during the operation (of which approximately 200 were fatalities).

 

[GinandTonic]

Who calls a ship HMS Vindictive?

 

[Adler17]

The British. But I found HMS Invincible even better.

Adler

 

[ParkCungHee]

The British always have the most colorful names for their ships.
Vindictive
Indomitable
Invisinsible
Vampire
etc.
We just name ships after battles, states, islands, cities and presidents I think.

 

[budweiser]

In the US Navy there is a separate convention for each class of ship, but I think the conventions change over time, and I haven't kept up with them. It seems the Royal navy just uses adjective for their ships.

 

[GinandTonic]

Im British, Im just confused since vindictive is a negative word. Aggressive for sure, but generally negative.

While lots of RN ships are named after cities, counties or people, many have outlandish names, Vengance, Superb or the clear winner namewise Warspite.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Im British, Im just confused since vindictive is a negative word. Aggressive for sure, but generally negative.

While lots of RN ships are named after cities, counties or people, many have outlandish names, Vengance, Superb or the clear winner namewise Warspite.

Personally I always thought that sounded a lot cooler...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Im British, Im just confused since vindictive is a negative word. Aggressive for sure, but generally negative.

While lots of RN ships are named after cities, counties or people, many have outlandish names, Vengance, Superb or the clear winner namewise Warspite.

I love British ship names:

Invincible
Indefatigable
Implacable
Invincible
Achilles
Herakles
Victory
Illustrious
Vengeance
Terror
Aggamemnon
Charybdis
Impregnable
Indomitable
Imperial
Valiant
Vanguard

They're just so....epic.

 

[Verbose]

I love British ship names:

Invincible
Indefatigable
Implacable
Invincible
Achilles
Herakles
Victory
Illustrious
Vengeance
Terror
Aggamemnon
Charybdis
Impregnable
Indomitable
Imperial
Valiant
Vanguard

They're just so....epic.

You are aware of the historical tradition of (re-)naming one's ships after defeated/captured enemy vessels? A lot of the names of RN ships were originally the names of French navy ships, but more or less Anglified. It seems to have been a way of bragging, but makes for a considerable number of French named RN ships.

From the Wikipedia list of RN ship names, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_ship_names:
Achille, Actif, Adroit, Africaine, Aigle, Aimable, Albanaise, Alceste, Amaranthe, Ambuscade, Amitie, Arc-en-Ciel, Artheuse, Arrogante, Athenienne, Audacieux, Aurore...

And that's just an imcomplete sample of "A".

 

[GinandTonic]

I love British ship names:
...
Vengeance
...
They're just so....epic.

Vengeance is such a great name for an SSBN. In the words of the advert, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Any other countries have great ship names?