Why didn't Americans fully appreciate the Zero's innovations?

[Blitzpuppy]

The first Americans to examine a Japanese Zero in detail assumed its design derived from Western technology. What do you think accounts for their failure to fully appreciate the legendary fighter’s innovations?

[johnbryan]

Originally Posted by Blitzpuppy

The first Americans to examine a Japanese Zero in detail assumed its design derived from Western technology. What do you think accounts for their failure to fully appreciate the legendary fighter’s innovations?

Two words: Racial Prejudice. The western nations believed the Oriental Races to be intellectually inferior. This was a belief shared by Orientals towards the western colonial powers. Every nation and people around the world thought of themselves as the chosen people and the final distilation of all wisdom and truth.

[Carl Schwamberg]

What were the inovations?

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by johnbryan

Two words: Racial Prejudice. The western nations believed the Oriental Races to be intellectually inferior. This was a belief shared by Orientals towards the western colonial powers. Every nation and people around the world thought of themselves as the chosen people and the final distilation of all wisdom and truth.

I remember it being said somewhere (probably a TV doco) that the Japanese were popularly believed to suffer from poor eyesight and lacked the necessary attributes to make good fighter pilots. Not sure how many Westerners would have really believed such things but if they did, it would fit in with other notions of Oriental racial inferiority.

[apteryx]

Originally Posted by johnbryan

Two words: Racial Prejudice. The western nations believed the Oriental Races to be intellectually inferior. This was a belief shared by Orientals towards the western colonial powers. Every nation and people around the world thought of themselves as the chosen people and the final distilation of all wisdom and truth.

I'm not sure that Westerners thought of Orientals as intellectually inferior - more as second-rate powers. You would have thought they would have learnt something following the Russo-Japanese War. What were our spies doing?
Just as an aside I watched a 1941 Japanese movie about a bus conductress. A gem of a movie - but what I found most interesting was to see this superfast electric train pass by! We still haven't figured them out.

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

What were the inovations?

Not sure if these would be truly classified as 'innovations' but at the time of the Zero's first introduction into service (IIRC 1940), its combination of superb agility, reasonably good overall performance, great all-round visibility for the pilot, cannon armament and exceptionally long range would have made it a 'possible' contender for 'World's best fighter' at that time.

However, it also had some significant (and intially at least, less obvious) weaknesses or deficiencies, some of which helped to explain part of its abovementioned positive attributes: Very light construction, to the point of flimsiness compared to Western fighters; lack of any armour even for the pilot (although IIRC there was an attempt to fit a modest amount in some later versions - memory a bit rusty on this). Also, it did not lend itself at all well to significant upgrade (unlike a number of its better Western rivals), so it fell behind in the race to produce more powerful, higher performing fighters.

The Zero's initial relative potency, combined with often more highly skilled and experienced pilots in the first year or so of the Pacific war, helped to establish its early ascendancy but it did not take long for this to be first eroded and then irretrievably lost, as Allied fighters improved and Allied fighter pilots became more skilled and developed more appropriate tactics. So, for the most part it became (with perhaps a few notable exceptions) a downward spiral for the Zero.


All the above strictly from memory of my readings on the subject; being at work right now and no access to my books. Hope I did OK.

[Chukka]

Perhaps it was the same as the Macchi C 205. Sure it was a brilliant plane, but it was dismissed as a threat because of a lack of numbers or the way that it would be employed.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Blitzpuppy

The first Americans to examine a Japanese Zero in detail assumed its design derived from Western technology. What do you think accounts for their failure to fully appreciate the legendary fighter’s innovations?

I have wondered whether a contributing thing to the general opinion of their capabilities (or lack of) was the fact that in the 30s so much of the Japanese goods that flooded the western markets was 'Cheapjack' and seldom was made to last, people would look at something with the stamp MADE in JAPAN and laugh. Now this seems a very simple explanation but things like that do stick!!

[Leftie]

Originally Posted by Chukka

Perhaps it was the same as the Macchi C 205. Sure it was a brilliant plane, but it was dismissed as a threat because of a lack of numbers or the way that it would be employed.

The C205 and even it's earlier brother the C202 are my favorite planes of WWII. They were great aricraft that could have been used to even greater effect if they were employed within their capabilities.



Ben

[RapierFighter]

Let's look at it from this angle...

For one thing, the Zeke was pretty fast, extremely agile, and had outstanding range. That doesn't make it an innovative aircraft. It just makes it a good one.

And there might be other reasons for Americans believing that the Zeke was inferior...and racial bigotry might only play a small part. How about the fact that just about everything else the Japanese had was, in fact, inferior?

Don't even try to convince me that Japanese rifles, pistols, and machine guns were anywhere near the equal of most American, British, German, or even Russian equipment. Read up on that and see what they were using. Inferior? The Japanese Army seemed to have nothing but inferior small arms.

Tanks? Crap. Nothing but crap. It doesn't take a bigot to make that judgment.

I could go on...

But seriously...So much that they had sucked. How were Americans supposed to take it as an article of faith that they actually got something right and made a decent fighter?

All I ever hear is that "By 1943, when the US got the P-38 Lightning, the Hellcat, and the Corsair, the tables were turned..."

Really?

How about the fact that the Wildcat, that supposed underdog, racked up a 4-1 kill ratio over the "superior" Zero? Or that the P-40 Warhawk did about as well?

No, the Zero wasn't that superior. It was superior in certain aspects of its design. It was faster than much of what the US had at the time, it could out-turn everything, outclimb everything, and fly a hell of a lot farther. But look at what the Wildcat or Warhawk could do. They could outdive the Zero, their armor was far greater, had self-sealing fuel tanks, and firepower that could, and did, rip a Zero to shreds in no time.

Oh, and who was bloodying the Zero's nose at that stage of the war with inferior fighters? Simple. American pilots who didn't spend years learning their craft in China like the Japanese did.

The Zero was superior in its own fashion, but was also inferior. It was simply based around different priorities than American fighters. And who won? I don't mean who won the war, but who won in the skies? The P-40 was obliterated at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, but the vast majority were destroyed on the ground. When you have a dozen fighters to contend with 100 Japanese ones...well, you don't always have to have a superior fighter to win with the odds on your side.

And before most pilots ever knew what a Hellcat was, the Wildcat was giving far greater than it got on Guadalcanal.

No, the Zero was not a superior fighter. It was simply designed with different priorities. Its speed, range, and maneuverability shocked the Americans to be sure, but its greatest impact was psychological. Once the shock wore off and reality set in, the Americans buckled down and learned how to use their own aircrafts' advantages to smash the Zero.

That's all I have to say.

[Kirasjeri]

Originally Posted by panther3485

I remember it being said somewhere (probably a TV doco) that the Japanese were popularly believed to suffer from poor eyesight and lacked the necessary attributes to make good fighter pilots. Not sure how many Westerners would have really believed such things but if they did, it would fit in with other notions of Oriental racial inferiority.

I recall reading that many Westerners thought the Japanese did not have adequate balance to be good pilots as they were carried around on their mothers' backs as children.

[Intranetusa]

I recently heard a guest on NPR say that East Asians were good at math due to rice agriculture. XD

Originally Posted by lcm1

I have wondered whether a contributing thing to the general opinion of their capabilities (or lack of) was the fact that in the 30s so much of the Japanese goods that flooded the western markets was 'Cheapjack' and seldom was made to last, people would look at something with the stamp MADE in JAPAN and laugh. Now this seems a very simple explanation but things like that do stick!!

lol, just like how Made in China is currently regarded as the cheap mass produced stuff.

[Chukka]

Originally Posted by RapierFighter

Let's look at it from this angle...



And there might be other reasons for Americans believing that the Zeke was inferior...and racial bigotry might only play a small part. How about the fact that just about everything else the Japanese had was, in fact, inferior?

Don't even try to convince me that Japanese rifles, pistols, and machine guns were anywhere near the equal of most American, British, German, or even Russian equipment. Read up on that and see what they were using. Inferior? The Japanese Army seemed to have nothing but inferior small arms.

Tanks? Crap. Nothing but crap. It doesn't take a bigot to make that judgment.

.

The above comments are fair enough but I have never read anything to say that their naval ships, Destroyers and cruisers at least, were anything less than excellent (except for a lack of decent Gunnery radar) .Would you agree?

[panther3485]

Originally Posted by Chukka

The above comments are fair enough but I have never read anything to say that their naval ships, Destroyers and cruisers at least, were anything less than excellent (except for a lack of decent Gunnery radar) .Would you agree?

Actually, Japanese tanks weren't all quite as bad as is popularly believed either.

[Lance Williams]

Originally Posted by RapierFighter

Let's look at it from this angle...

For one thing, the Zeke was pretty fast, extremely agile, and had outstanding range. That doesn't make it an innovative aircraft. It just makes it a good one.

And there might be other reasons for Americans believing that the Zeke was inferior...and racial bigotry might only play a small part. How about the fact that just about everything else the Japanese had was, in fact, inferior?

Don't even try to convince me that Japanese rifles, pistols, and machine guns were anywhere near the equal of most American, British, German, or even Russian equipment. Read up on that and see what they were using. Inferior? The Japanese Army seemed to have nothing but inferior small arms.

Tanks? Crap. Nothing but crap. It doesn't take a bigot to make that judgment.

I could go on...

But seriously...So much that they had sucked. How were Americans supposed to take it as an article of faith that they actually got something right and made a decent fighter?

All I ever hear is that "By 1943, when the US got the P-38 Lightning, the Hellcat, and the Corsair, the tables were turned..."

Really?

How about the fact that the Wildcat, that supposed underdog, racked up a 4-1 kill ratio over the "superior" Zero? Or that the P-40 Warhawk did about as well?

No, the Zero wasn't that superior. It was superior in certain aspects of its design. It was faster than much of what the US had at the time, it could out-turn everything, outclimb everything, and fly a hell of a lot farther. But look at what the Wildcat or Warhawk could do. They could outdive the Zero, their armor was far greater, had self-sealing fuel tanks, and firepower that could, and did, rip a Zero to shreds in no time.

Oh, and who was bloodying the Zero's nose at that stage of the war with inferior fighters? Simple. American pilots who didn't spend years learning their craft in China like the Japanese did.

The Zero was superior in its own fashion, but was also inferior. It was simply based around different priorities than American fighters. And who won? I don't mean who won the war, but who won in the skies? The P-40 was obliterated at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, but the vast majority were destroyed on the ground. When you have a dozen fighters to contend with 100 Japanese ones...well, you don't always have to have a superior fighter to win with the odds on your side.

And before most pilots ever knew what a Hellcat was, the Wildcat was giving far greater than it got on Guadalcanal.

No, the Zero was not a superior fighter. It was simply designed with different priorities. Its speed, range, and maneuverability shocked the Americans to be sure, but its greatest impact was psychological. Once the shock wore off and reality set in, the Americans buckled down and learned how to use their own aircrafts' advantages to smash the Zero.

That's all I have to say.

I agree completely with what you said. Another big difference that no one seems to have touched on about the Zero is that it's range made it the first carrier based fighter that was truly an offensive platform. At least early in it's career the element of surprise that it's range gave it covered up many of it's weaknesses...........