View Full Version : Zero damage model

11-02-2004, 08:58 AM
Been flying Wildcat campaing and noticed how easy it is to shoot Zeros wiht 50 cal. Just a short burst and Zero looses its wings or a tail.

Is this historically accurate? Did Zero have a wooden structure?

11-02-2004, 09:01 AM
nope, i'm pretty sure they had a metal or alluminum structure, but they were very thinly skinned, and they had unprotected gas tanks, so the minute you put a glowing tracer through one they're either leaking or falling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

11-02-2004, 09:08 AM
Zeros were not that durable. Little to no armor...no self sealing fuel tanks. consider the actual losses described by Saburo Sakai at Iwo Jima the first time they flew against Hellcats:

1. 80 Zeros defended against the attack...only 40 remained at the end of the mission.

2. The next mission 40 Zeros launched and 20 were destroyed. In 2 missions 75% of the Zeros were lost. These are actual losses...not claims.

11-02-2004, 10:41 AM
yep~ the zero's damage model is some what historically accurate. it is both deadly to itself & the enemies ^_^~~

put it in your mind: zeros are built to hit others while NOT to be hit by the others.

americans fighters are built to hit others while being hit by the others. LOL~

11-02-2004, 11:04 AM
You are obsolutly correct in you observation that this where actual loses and not claims. The Japanese loses where staggering the the later part of the war. What this post did not mention was that there where hundreds of Hellcats waiting to slaughter them. That half of them made back was increadible. One of the resean that the Zero was so easy to shoot down was in part due to the Japanese lack of acceptance of defensive warfare over offensive warfare even when all evidence told that their planes should have been build for deffensive purpose.The lack of seals in their gas tanks and armour in their planes would increase their range and they would bee able attack the enemy at longer distances.
Changing that would have been a admission that they where losing the War.
Now on the Subject of Admitted Loses and claims. I am glad you brought that up. You need to look at the enemy records and compare to yours if you are serious WW11 Historians and if you are going get any acruccy in the records. All combatants in WW11 over claim their kill ratio in compararson to their enemy. Always accept any claims by anyone with a grain of salt.

The Zeros in the hand of a expereince Japanese Pilot was always dagerous opponent. Never underestimate it. This is only word of advise.

11-02-2004, 11:07 AM
There was a very very detailed report on the construction of the Zero types posted here a year or two ago, perhaps Skychimp posted it. Something it mentioned that I hadn't heard before was to do with the Zeros fuel tanks. Not only were they non-self sealing, which is very bad for long oversea missions where fuel conservation is critical [one .30 cal hole in the bottom of the tank? you know how to swim, right?], but they were pressed up right against the wing spars and external structure. So when a .50 cal round slams into a thin walled tank full of fuel, you would get a nice demonstration of the noncompressibility of liquids.

11-02-2004, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
All combatants in WW11 ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

World War Eleven!


Did I miss something while i was away?

11-02-2004, 12:05 PM
MiamiEagle wrote:

about "...Japanese lack of acceptance of defensive warfare over offensive warfare even when all evidence told that their planes should have been build for deffensive purpose...."

which I understand,

but: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Changing that would have been a admission that they where losing the War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is an intersting comment. I had assumed it was due to economics and performance loss.. Where did you learn this?

11-02-2004, 12:24 PM
Flying full real servers, in a F4U 1C against A6M5b's... nuff' said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Is it really hard to believe Zero's were THAT fragile? How strong would the average joe think it was?

I think the japs had a different philosophy regarding how the Zero's should have been built.

11-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Yeah, I have to think the Zero's damage model is a little bit porked. I'm a lousy, and I mean LOUSY shot, and I can swat them out of the air with barely an effort. I don't think anything is really HUGELY wrong, but I have to wonder if the Zero was really as fragile as they seem in the game. Maybe this is something that bears revisiting...

11-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Maybe its the .50's being to good!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry couldn't resist.

11-02-2004, 04:04 PM
No, they are not too good. .50'cal is as effective as MG 151/20, which means they are a bit undermodeled but still acceptable.

11-02-2004, 04:21 PM
The zero was designed to meet the specs of the pilots who were originally to fly her. Armor and extra weight was eliminated to give it teh offensive edge. Why do you need armor if no one can get behind you.

The Zero nad early Japanese planes were very fragile. Read some of the accuall Allied accounts abou thow quickly the Japanese planes succumbed to fire.

11-02-2004, 05:31 PM
CHeck out this photo of the wing structure of an A6M3. The structure was minimum compaired to that of something like the F4F, and the aluminum was very light, then, and brittle. A main wing spar could shatter, and not bend if a bullete passed through it. Also, note the fuel tank's and ammo are all packed into the wing.


F4U Wing.


11-02-2004, 06:58 PM
That looks like a ladder to me.. Was some one cleaning the ceiling at the time?