Talk:Mitsubishi A6M Zero

Is the Swedish FFVS J 22 a comparible aircraft

Introduced in 1943 to the swedish air force the FFVS J 22 seems to be in the same class as the Zero.

"Type 97 machine gun" page linked to is the wrong gun.

In the armaments section, it correctly states that the A6M is armed with two "Type 97 machine guns". The Zero is armed with two Imperial Japanese NAVY "Type 97" fixed, belt fed machine guns, which are derived from the Vickers. However, the page it links to is for the Japanese ARMY "Type 97 machine gun", which is a magazine fed light machine gun used by Japanese infantry. The two share nothing in common, not even the same cartridge, even though they are both nominally 7.7mm. The Japanese Navy and Army didn't cooperate at all in weapons. Since in the very first paragraph of that page someone has kindly stated that the gun being described is "not to be confused with the 'Type 97 machine gun' arming certain Imperial Japanese Navy fighters such as the A6M Zero'", I don't see why the article links to that page at all. It just confuses people who don't understand how complex Japanese designation system were. That said, I'm concerned that there isn't a page for the correct gun at all. Or the page "Type 97 machine gun" ought to cover both types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the current link to Type 97 machine gun, which redirects to Type 97 light machine gun, is unhelpful. Type 97 machine gun should be some sort of disambiguation page, pointing to the army light machine gun and the navy fixed gun (which is redlinked as the Type 97 aircraft machine gun in the lmg article). The navy gun could either be covered in a stand-alone article (if sufficient information could be found) or in the main Vickers machine gun article, where it isn't mentioned at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And the "Type 97 light machine gun" isn't really a light machine gun, but a dedicated gun designed for use in tanks!Nigel Ish (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the page didn't exist when I wrote that comment, but I discover now that there IS a page covering the Type 97 aircraft machine gun. Therefore I am going to switch the link to the correct page, if no-one has any objections. .45Colt 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

Info on stats for A6M5 variants

I was reading the info on the A6M5 and I was wondering about the tittle "Kou", should it say "Ko", or just "Kou"? I have seen some sites and games that say something like "A6M5"Ko"", not "Kou". I also noticed that the 13.2 machine gun was first added on the "Hei" model but according to the Information about the A6M5 Otsu from Warthunder[[1]]'s website, it was added to the "Otsu" Model first, not the "Hei". The reason I pointed out their information is because they don't rely on Wikipedia's information for the stats and info on their content. They look for historically accurate info from reliable sources for their info. There for I would like some one to clean up the info on the A6M5 section as well as adding reliable sources to the same section. Thanks in advance. 76.0.99.169 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation History

This section is an opinion piece rather than an informational one. It is full of sweeping, conclusory statements mostly tending to the idea that the Zero was vastly superior to Allied naval aircraft before 1943. This statement is not substantiated in satisfactory way; history of the Pacific War in 1942 speaks against the Zero's vast superiority, as the Imperial Japanese Navy sustained a higher aircraft casualty in every major battle it fought against the US Navy; and most importantly, it has the quality of a blog article and does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I will delete all poorly supported (and counterfactual/ counterintuitive) statements about the Zero's superiority in one week barring objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensiveneko (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not going anywhere without the widely acknowledged consensus of some colleagues. More than sufficient sources are given in the lede, aswell as allied impressions on actual founded trials, to remove your entire cn warring. PresleyLT (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You and I must be reading two completely different articles. There is nothing in the article that I read that comes close to "sufficient sources." See, e.g., the sentence "They were astounded by the Zero's superiority[.]" This supposed astonishment is substantiated by a completely unrelated quotation describing Zero fighters' tactics. In some cases, the 'impressions' are simply irrelevant, e.g. the long section on American pilots' dissatisfaction with the F4F Wildcat. This is an article on the A6M Zero, not the F4F Wildcat.

In the Allied Opinions section, the quotation describing the Zero's build is simply unattributed. Is this what you mean when you speak of "sufficient sources" or "allied impressions"?

Not to mention some of these "sufficient sources" come from video game manuals (Thompson with Smith) or from an unsourced article from a gun blog (Chuck Hawks). Unless someone can justify these frankly embarrassing and unacceptable "sufficient sources," or provided proper sources, I will remove all opinion sentences that are not solidly attributed. Moreover, I will also add in the article that the Imperial Japanese Navy suffered far heavier aircraft losses than the Allied navies despite the A6M Zero's reputation as a fine fighter.

Pensiveneko (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sufficient sources - Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword, for instance. Sure, the Hawks blog should be replaced, but that does not mean that the point it is currently supporting is incorrect. I would strongly caution that you don't go removing information here (or elsewhere) without first seeking consensus on the talk page.

You seem to be conflating battles with technical superiority - and also seem to be operating under the false impression that "vastly superior" equates to "free from faults". There are many reasons why the Zero, though technologically superior to every Allied aircraft available in 1942, was still shot down in large numbers. The article already makes clear that American pilots developed tactics to combat the capabilities of the Zero and exploit its weaknesses. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stands claims that the Zero, despite its lackluster record in actual combat, was technologically superior, because a video game manual and a gun blog said so. You then state that there are plenty of sources to substantiate this superiority. Then let's add them in (although "Shattered Sword" is definitely not one of them). Until these sources are added in, the claim based on video game manuals must be stricken from these pages. Pensiveneko (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)