# Was the Zero too good?



## Conslaw (Apr 5, 2018)

The question to debate: Was the A6M Zero too good in 1941? By that I mean, did confidence in the zero cause the Japanese military to have an overly optimistic notion of their odds in a war with the Western powers? If they hadn't had the Zero would they have never tried the military expansion in December 1941?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 5, 2018)

There was quite a lot of arrogance and wishful thinking on the part of the Japanese government, probably worsened by early successes. Throw in a hyper-nationalistic, militarily aggressive regime, with a tendency to punish naysayers, and calm analysis quickly leaves the room. 

The Japanese had other early successes, and any one would be touted and the losses would be fake news

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 5, 2018)

Do you think Japan would have the nerve to undertake its campaign of December 1941 if it had to rely on the A5M Claude as its naval fighter? The Zero-21 was the only single-engined fighter in the world that had the range to fly from Formosa to Luzon, fight and return. If the Phillipines were to be taken without the Zero, the front-line carriers would have had to provide the A5Ms to support the campaign. That would have meant no Pearl Harbor attack, and the main US Pacific Fleet would have been untouched.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

The A5M actually flew the month before the Grumman F3F biplane. The likelihood the Japanese would have kept the A5M as their first line fighter till the end of 1941 is close to nil. The odds are they would have developed some sort of retractable gear fighter. It might not have been as good as the Zero. Now would they have gone to war with this fighter or not.
The easy victories the Zero helped them get in the early part of the war may have led to overconfidence after the first few months though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 6, 2018)

Japanese expansion would have happened if the main fighter of the IJN was a hot air balloon. 
The Hayabusa came out roughly same time as the Zero so the IJN would have had a comparable fighter of some type.
By 1941 the Zero was not good and was no match for any modern 109 or Spitfire or Fw 190. You don't need a jet fighter when the enemy has Brewster Buffalos.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2018)

The A6M and KI-43 were both premier designs for their time, but much like the RLM, the Japanese high-command did not place a high priority on suitable replacements until the situation became dire.
Towards the end of the Pacific War, the Japanese had several types that were on a par or better than what the Allies were fielding at the time.
However, as was the case with the Luftwaffe: too little, too late...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

The high command did place some importance on replacements. The problem for the Japanese in this area was that their ambitions exceeded their capability. The country was too small to support their ambitions. There weren't enough engineers to both design new aircraft in a timely fashion *and* update the existing ones. Issuing specifications for specialized aircraft (interceptors in addition to general purpose fighter) didn't help.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The A6M and KI-43 were both premier designs for their time, but much like the RLM, the Japanese high-command did not place a high priority on suitable replacements until the situation became dire.
> Towards the end of the Pacific War, the Japanese had several types that were on a par or better than what the Allies were fielding at the time.
> However, as was the case with the Luftwaffe: too little, too late...



Welcome back, Dave 
IJA have had a requirement for other fighters, the Ki-44 and Ki-61 followed the Ki-43 with reasonably expediency. I will not agree that Ki-43 was a premier design for it's time.
The IJN, however, wasted too much time (a most precious resource) with dedicated floatplane fighter/recon from Kawainshi, while specifying the J2M without regard to the ability to be operated from carriers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

The Ki-44 was a bit of a mistake-fumble in that the Japanese could not afford multiple types of slightly different fighters for each service. 
If the Japanese needed a radial engine fighter of higher performance than the Ki-43 (and they did) then it should have been a replacement for the Ki-43 and not a supplement/special use aircraft.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 6, 2018)

The A6M was the right answer to the Japanese strategy. Gambling everything on long range with effective fighter performance against it's immediate likely enemies. It was for a bold aggressive strategy to seize territory too fast for effective enemy defence. The strategy presumed this would be followed by negotiations in which Japan would get what it needed and could withdraw. All in as short a time as possible. When it failed and Japan found itself in an (inevitable) war of attrition and comparative resources it was entirely the wrong answer for what was needed for a defensive fighter. For it's intended role it was second to none. For it's actual role later on it was second to most opposition. Still a technical tour de force for a fighter with Bristol Mercury like power in 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The A6M and KI-43 were both premier designs for their time, but much like the RLM, the Japanese high-command did not place a high priority on suitable replacements until the situation became dire.
> Towards the end of the Pacific War, the Japanese had several types that were on a par or better than what the Allies were fielding at the time.
> However, as was the case with the Luftwaffe: too little, too late...



I second Tomo - Welcome back, you were missed.

When I read "Shattered Sword" for the first time, one of the things that struck me was in the description of Nagumo while he was attending a conference with designers and pilots to address the Zero's replacement. What I got from it was the pilots were all too enthusiastic and saw no reason for concern while the designers seemed to be saying "look, the Americans are bound to field new fighters very soon, we need to stay competitive".

Nagumo seemed to be agreeing with the designers but, as memory serves, didn't push either way. To me it sounds like the design team realized they needed to push forward but the pilots in the field said no and high command was ambivalent on the subject.

I could be way off base here, after all, I'm just the guy in the back with the beer making either snarky comments or asking the dumb questions.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 6, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Japanese expansion would have happened if the main fighter of the IJN was a hot air balloon.
> The Hayabusa came out roughly same time as the Zero so the IJN would have had a comparable fighter of some type.
> By 1941 the Zero was not good and was no match for any modern 109 or Spitfire or Fw 190. You don't need a jet fighter when the enemy has Brewster Buffalos.



The A6M-21 did well against the Spitfire V. The Brewster 239 (Buffalo) was very successful against the bf-109 in the hands of the Finns. 
The Ki-43 Hayabusa barely made it to a few front line units by December 7, 1941. It was inferior to the Zero in speed, firepower, and most critically, range. Let's say they had a carrier-capable Ki-43 in December 1941. It would not have been capable of attacking Luzon from Formosa, and it would have been inferior to the P-40s at Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 6, 2018)

The IJA did a better job at following up on the Ki-43 than the IJN did following up on the A6M. Over 3,000 Ki-61 were built and over 1,200 Ki-44. Even saying this, numerically the Ki-43 was still a common front line fighter at the end of the war, even though more than 3,500 of the excellent Ki-84 "Frank" fighters were manufactured. The IJN's replacement fighters were produced in too few numbers to be significant. (J2M 671 built, N1K 1532 built) For a variety of reasons, the Zero's planned replacement, the A6M "Reppu" (code name "Sam") never made it into mass production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 6, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Do you think Japan would have the nerve to undertake its campaign of December 1941 if it had to rely on the A5M Claude as its naval fighter? The Zero-21 was the only single-engined fighter in the world that had the range to fly from Formosa to Luzon, fight and return. If the Phillipines were to be taken without the Zero, the front-line carriers would have had to provide the A5Ms to support the campaign. That would have meant no Pearl Harbor attack, and the main US Pacific Fleet would have been untouched.




Yep. Remember, there is a story Yamamoto was sent to sea because he was not a strident cheerleader for war against the US

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> The Brewster 239 (Buffalo) was very successful against the bf-109 in the hands of the Finns. .


Afaik was very successful vs soviet fighters, at time of lapland war the 239 saw limited service

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Apr 7, 2018)

I think the problem with the Zero been too good was that it meant its replacement never entered service. The "original" Zero A6M2 model 21 is one of the greatest overall designs ever. For sure it emboldened the Japanese entering war vs the USA.

However design effort spent in continual upgrades for the Zero was about as effective as putting an ash tray on a motor bike. The A6M3 with the improved Sakae motor was a "dud" and only improved high altitude speed with its 2 speed supercharger, and the A6M5 really only improved dive speed. This was not enough to counter Corsairs and Hellcats. In retrospect diverting Jiro Horikoshi with the J2M Raiden project was disasterous, The Raiden was the answer to a non-existing problem! While the need for a successor for the Zero was certain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 7, 2018)

In a nutshell in comparison to America, Japan was a poor country with no oil and a weak industrial base. So it's final defeat should be no surprise.
Ki-61 as mentioned was ok for 1940 but not for 1943. And have you seen Japanese tanks? Or lack of?
The Buffalo in Finnish service is not important to the Zero story. 
As mentioned before Japan did not intend to go to war with America but to knock it out of war early so it runs away. 
One word described Japan perfectly is hubris and from that single word all fits and falls apart.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2018)

The Zero wasn't "too good", it's just that it was exactly the right airframe at the right time to accomplish Japan's immediate objectives in the period Dec 1941 thru May 1942. It was a great aircraft when used on the offensive against adversaries that lacked integrated radar-based C3 and it had enough performance to deal with the, frankly, second-string Allied types that were arranged against it in that timeframe. The Allies under-performed because of Japan's impeccable timing in attacking right at the moment when the Allies were at their weakest, and hence unable to respond rapidly. 

As the strategic situation evolved, the weaknesses in the Zero became all too apparent. What was great when on the offensive proved challenging for sustained attritional or defensive campaigns.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

The Zero was both enabled and handicapped by it's engines. The initial engine gave it just enough power to do it's job and got great mileage to boot _at low power settings, _which enabled the great range. The 2nd version with 2 speed supercharger gave more power (but not enough?) but was bulkeir and thristier. The 3rd version with water injection failed in the hoped for boost in power and no substitute was considered for far too long, which doomed the Zero to degrading performance and a choice between protection and increasingly inadequate fire power or no protection and better fire power. However with no large increase in performance the Japanese pilots had a harder and harder time getting the firepower they did have into position to use it, made worse by the falling standard of training of the pilots. 
A more powerful but thirstier engine may have allowed a better defensive fighter to be built, better protection to allow more pilots to live long enough to gain experience, adequate fire power to deal with American planes and adequate performance even if muchshorter ranged than the models they started the war with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

Installing a more powerful, new engine type on the Zero was long overdue after 1942.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2018)

Japan's industrial base was, in 1940, much weaker than it became post-WW2, and far more dependent on imports of materials than either Italy or Germany, and, so, far more vulnerable to submarine warfare, possibly moreso than the UK, which could produce energy and at least some iron from domestic resources (I suspect the UK also had more arable land not used for farming or pasture: estates and golf courses could always be plowed up for agriculture or used as pasture).

One issue of their resource limits is that Japanese metallurgists had to develop steels that used copper as an alloying element as they couldn't get enough nickel.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 8, 2018)

A few pointers.
Japan didn't have an industrial revolution until 1870 so they went from zero to Zero in a relatively short space of time.
The Japanese also fought a war with the USSR in 1939 and lost. *Battles of Khalkhyn Gol.*
They having no luck with the Russians decided war against USA instead. Oddly if they invaded Siberia as the North Strike Group wanted in 1941 when the Germans invaded then the Soviets could have collapsed.
*Battles of Khalkhyn Gol* are forgotten but we owe a great debt to Zhukov.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2018)

To expand on my earlier comment, Japan knew they had limited resources, especially after they lost their raw materials and fuel imports from the U.S. - so time was of the essence and yet, they did not have a sense of urgency in their fighter, attack and bomber development until the war turned in the Allies' favor. Much like Germany's output, which peaked in 1944, Japan's aircraft manufacturing held a steady pace of production and new type development until the later stages of the war.
Had either Germany or Japan (or both) pushed for production and development levels in 1939, like they were in 1944, then the face of the war would have had a much different look.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> To expand on my earlier comment, Japan knew they had limited resources, especially after they lost their raw materials and fuel imports from the U.S. - so time was of the essence and yet, they did not have a sense of urgency in their fighter, attack and bomber development until the war turned in the Allies' favor. Much like Germany's output, which peaked in 1944, Japan's aircraft manufacturing held a steady pace of production and new type development until the later stages of the war.
> Had either Germany or Japan (or both) pushed for production and development levels in 1939, like they were in 1944, then the face of the war would have had a much different look.



Dave - Germany was in big economic problems already by 1938 due to fast re-armament program. Hence the grad towards Austria and Czechoslovakia, to steal the gold reserves. Asking from them to double the miitary spending at late 1930s would've meant the land grab already in 1937, with what consequences?

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 10, 2018)

Let's say Germany had a shortage of copper in 1939.
How do you increase war production? 
They had a shortage of copper from the production they had.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 10, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Let's say Germany had a shortage of copper in 1939.
> How do you increase war production?
> They had a shortage of copper from the production they had.


Invade their neighbors and steal whatever they can get their hands on, which is exactly what they did. Then, enslave those countries citizens or kill them and steal their property. Gee, they did that, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2018)

Guys, keep on track and leave the politics out of this


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2018)

Let's take a look at some numbers, first of all. I'll use 1939 through 1945 to make a balanced comparison.

The total number of ALL aircraft produced by Germany:
1939 - 8,295
1940 - 10,862
1941 - 12,401
1942 - 15,409
1943 - 24,807
1944 - 40,593
1945 - 7,540
Total - 119,907

The total number of ALL aircraft produced by Japan:
1939 - 4,467
1940 - 4,768
1941 - 5,088
1942 - 8,861
1943 - 16,693
1944 - 28,180
1945 - 8,263
Total - 76,320

Now we have to consider the decision to go to war by Germany & Japan was not a surprise to anyone in their leadership and had been planned ahead of time. In the early years for both Japan and Germany, their aircraft factories only had a single shift and as had been mentioned before, there was not a sense of urgency until the war situation was dire.
The argument that either Government didn't have the financial base for large production doesn't work here, because if we look at the numbers, both country's production totals peaked while their respective counties were being bombed day & night, their armies were in chaos, their Navies almost non-existant and they had virtually no GDP at that point, unlike 5 years earlier.

After Pearl Harbor, the United States went into a "wartime footing", meaning that they went into a scramble to get their factories in motion and in many cases, their factories went 24 hours a day - from the start. So let's look at the U.S. production numbers from the same time period - allowing that 1942 through 1945 should be the focus of comparison.
1939 - 2,141
1940 - 6,068
1941 - 18,466
1942 - 46,907
1943 - 84,853
1944 - 96,270
1945 - 45,852
Total - 300,557

Now let's stop for a moment and look at the U.S. prewar aircraft totals for a moment. Keep in mind that the U.S. was coming out of the "Great Depression" and there wasn't any real funding for the Army or Navy (one of the reasons there wasn't more manpower at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, but that's for another discussion) AND yet, the U.S. was producing more aircraft during peacetime than Japan was for wartime (1939, 1940 & 1941). And the U.S. was mostly producing aircraft for export during those 3 years, too.

So again, I contend that the Japanese should have taken their war effort seriously and focused on heightened development and production and in addition, not have rested on their laurels with the A6M, and started working on it's replacement even as it was being produced for front-line use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> So again, I contend that the Japanese should have taken their war effort seriously and focused on heightened development and production and in addition, not have rested on their laurels with the A6M, and started working on it's replacement even as it was being produced for front-line use.



Are we not gazing through the retrospectroscope here? The flaw in your argument is that the Japanese leadership never envisaged a long attritional war. They drank their own Kool-Aid and believed that America, in particular, lacked the stomach for war and would simply roll over and play dead after Pearl Harbor. Consequently, there was no need for anything better than the aircraft production that Japan already had planned...at least in the minds of key leadership officials. We can now look back and see clearly how misguided it was to take such a position...but at the time, no doubt, it was entirely logical from the perspective of many Japanese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2018)

lol...you know me, one of the few that use the foggy goggles of retro-vision!

They had already tangled with the Soviet Union and learned a hard lesson and were in the midst of conquest in Southeast Asia and the SWP.
Even if they had parlayed a peace with the U.S. (before or after Pearl Harbor), they would still need cutting edge technology.
Especially in light of the fact that they were also encroaching on European colonies.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 11, 2018)

Aircraft numbers are misleading.
If you build lots of single engine fighters then you are going to have a large number built. If you build lots of Ju-88 then you will have far fewer. 
Your data shows that USA built more aircraft in 1944 than the whole of Japanese wartime production!
Both the Zero and Hayabusa first flew in 1939 and so 3 years behind the Spitfire and far inferior. So if you build lots of Japanese fighters in 1939 then you build Ki-27 and A5M which is hardly a good idea.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Are we not gazing through the retrospectroscope here? The flaw in your argument is that the Japanese leadership never envisaged a long attritional war. They drank their own Kool-Aid and believed that America, in particular, lacked the stomach for war and would simply roll over and play dead after Pearl Harbor. *Consequently, there was no need for anything better than the aircraft production that Japan already had planned...at least in the minds of key leadership officials*. We can now look back and see clearly how misguided it was to take such a position...but at the time, no doubt, it was entirely logical from the perspective of many Japanese.



(my bold)
Japanese were surely looking for ever-better A/C, even in the days of early 1942. Not just looking, there was plenty of designs in the pipeline - two new army fighters (even though the Ki-43 didn't replaced the Ki 27 completely yet), new naval dive bomber, torpedo bomber and land-based fighter, several twin-engined bombers, new types of floatplane recon/fighter A/C. The carrier-based fighter to suplant and then replace the Zero was one of rare categories where they dropped the ball with new developments.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 11, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> (my bold)
> Japanese were surely looking for ever-better A/C, even in the days of early 1942. Not just looking, there was plenty of designs in the pipeline - two new army fighters (even though the Ki-43 didn't replaced the Ki 27 completely yet), new naval dive bomber, torpedo bomber and land-based fighter, several twin-engined bombers, new types of floatplane recon/fighter A/C. The carrier-based fighter to suplant and then replace the Zero was one of rare categories where they dropped the ball with new developments.



True enough, Tomo, but the effort was highly dispersed, and hence diluted. Many of the follow-on aircraft, particularly the fighters, struggled to match expectations or operational needs. Frankly, one has to question the resources devoted to development of floatplanes. If your strategy is such that it dictates development of ever more capable floatplanes, then you probably have the wrong strategy (IMHO). A resource-strapped nation shouldn't be wasting precious design, development and testing resources on such niche capabilities when primary combat airframes are struggling to keep pace. 

I do get the sense that Japanese leadership in the late 1930s was, to quote The Joker, "like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one, you know, I just do…things." Japan wanted an empire and wanted dominance in the western Pacific, but the leadership didn't really understand what to do with all the territory they gained nor, and here was the real strategic blunder, how to defend it. What looked like a great red wave covering the Pacific was, in reality, relatively small and isolated outposts that could never be mutually supporting, and hence could be defeated piecemeal. This all suggests a lack of thought, back in the late 1930s, about what to do if/when the initial offensives succeed. The only logical conclusion is that they never imagined that America would stand up to the might of Imperial Japan...and they marshalled their resources accordingly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2018)

The Hi command had issued a requirement for a replacement for the Zero in 1940. It got sidelined for a while and then updated in 1942 and this lead to the A7M Reppu.

From Wiki
"
Towards the end of 1940, the Imperial Japanese Navy asked Mitsubishi to start design on a 16-_Shi_ carrier-based fighter, which would be the successor to the carrier-based Zero. At that time, however, there were no viable high-output, compact engines to use for a new fighter. In addition, Jiro Horikoshi's team was preoccupied with addressing early production issues with the A6M2b as well as starting development on the A6M3 and the 14-_Shi_ interceptor (which would later become the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, a land-based interceptor built to counter high-altitude bombers). As a result, work on the Zero successor was halted in January 1941.

In April 1942, the development of the A6M3 and the 14-_Shi_ interceptor was complete, and the Japanese Navy once again tasked Mitsubishi and Horikoshi's team with designing a new Zero successor to become the *Navy Experimental 17-shi Ko (A) Type Carrier Fighter Reppu*. In July 1942 the Navy issued specifications for the fighter: it had to fly faster than 345 kn (639 km/h; 397 mph) above 6,000 m (20,000 ft), climb to 6,000 m (20,000 ft) in less than 6 minutes, be armed with two 20 mm cannon and two 13 mm (0.51 in) machine guns, and retain the maneuverability of the A6M3."

Unfortunately for the Japanese the critical year of 1941 had been lost. However without the "viable high-output, compact engines" there wasn't going to be a lot of progress made. The next step/s above the Sakae engine (28 liters) was the Kinsei (32.3 liters) and then the jump to the Kasai (42) liters as used in the G4M bomber. However in 1941/42 this was a 1500hp engine in production form.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> True enough, Tomo, but the effort was highly dispersed, and hence diluted. Many of the follow-on aircraft, particularly the fighters, struggled to match expectations or operational needs. Frankly, one has to question the resources devoted to development of floatplanes. If your strategy is such that it dictates development of ever more capable floatplanes, then you probably have the wrong strategy (IMHO). A resource-strapped nation shouldn't be wasting precious design, development and testing resources on such niche capabilities when primary combat airframes are struggling to keep pace.



Oh, I agree that Japanese made a good deal of self-inflicted wounds when it was about next-gen designs (not only in that area, of course). The dedicated floatplane fighter is a major point there - as a Navy, push for a next-gen fighter for carriers, then, if you have more fighters produced than it can fit on your carriers use them from land bases, and just after that make the floatplane fighter conversions is you have any fighters left. The IJN and IJA having each fighters and 2-engined bombers in desing - a major mistake, Japan is no rich powerhouse as it was USA or UK, and even those sometimes used the A/C initially designed for 'other' branch of military. Each service has their own machine guns/cannons, while each category of guns uses different cartridge?? Bombs and torpedoes from IJN can't fit on IJA A/C??



> I do get the sense that Japanese leadership in the late 1930s was, to quote The Joker, "like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one, you know, I just do…things." Japan wanted an empire and wanted dominance in the western Pacific, but the leadership didn't really understand what to do with all the territory they gained nor, and here was the real strategic blunder, how to defend it. What looked like a great red wave covering the Pacific was, in reality, relatively small and isolated outposts that could never be mutually supporting, and hence could be defeated piecemeal. This all suggests a lack of thought, back in the late 1930s, about what to do if/when the initial offensives succeed. The only logical conclusion is that they never imagined that America would stand up to the might of Imperial Japan...and they marshalled their resources accordingly.



Imperial Japan gambled, and asumed that West will do what Japanese military expected, while themselves being unable to sort out the quagmire they found themselves in China. Gamble backfired badly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 12, 2018)

I doubt Japan gambled on war with USA.
They wanted it.
The IJN and IJA were 2 separate power blocks so didn't need or want to cooperate.
In my book Japan was 4 years behind Western powers with fighters. 
They were even behind the Italians in fighters and I can think of no greater insult!


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I doubt Japan gambled on war with USA.
> They wanted it.



I disagree. Japan didn't WANT war with the US, but they felt they had to attack the US. Where they gambled was in the TYPE of war they expected to wage.

Japan wanted the oil resources of the Dutch East Indies in order to successfully prosecute their campaigns in China. That need for oil drove the necessity of attacking British Imperial territories in the region and, by extension, to US territories (ie the Philippines) that lay on the shipping route between the Gulf of Thailand and the Japanese homeland. The expansionist logic led Japan's leaders to the conclusion that war with the US was inevitable.

Japan could only afford a short, decisive war in which the US was soundly defeated, hence their preemptive actions to knock America out of the war right at the start. That certainly was a gamble, and it failed dismally.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KAKI3152 (Apr 12, 2018)

For some reason, bother the Luftwaffe and the JAF did not upgrade their engines accordingly as the wa progressed.
One poster on another board said if the Luftwaffe had re-engineered the Fw-190A with the DB603 in early 1944 instead of using them on ME-410s, the Luftwaffe would been theoretically able to have equality with the P-51. Japan should have adapted the Nakajima N9KH (1900Hp) or at least a 1500HP engine by1943 to keep up with the F6F or F4U


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 12, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Oh, I agree that Japanese made a good deal of self-inflicted wounds when it was about next-gen designs (not only in that area, of course). The dedicated floatplane fighter is a major point there - as a Navy, push for a next-gen fighter for carriers, then, if you have more fighters produced than it can fit on your carriers use them from land bases, and just after that make the floatplane fighter conversions is you have any fighters left.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
I believe you are forgetting one thing here. The Japanese didn't really have the ability to create land bases for their aircraft in a timely fashion as the US did. Look at the time spent on Henderson Field.
Until a land base is ready, the air support either comes from a carrier or sea planes / float planes.



The Basket said:


> In my book Japan was 4 years behind Western powers with fighters.
> They were even behind the Italians in fighters and I can think of no greater insult!



Hello The Basket,
I would have to disagree with you on a couple points here.
First of all, the Italians never were able to produce a competent fighter with entirely domestic technology.
Their best fighters all used German engine designs.
The Japanese on the other hand produced a few competitive designs with their own technology such as the Ki 84, N1K2, and J2M.
As I see it, at the end of the war, all three of the designs I listed were in production and were competitive with then operational US fighters, so the gap between the Japanese and the West was not nearly 4 years.

Going back to the original subject:
I believe it wasn't so much the superiority of the A6M as the inferiority of opposition that the Japanese met in China that gave them the confidence in their own superiority. Meeting the Russians in China wasn't enough of a wake-up call for them.

I believe also that the Japanese diluted their design efforts and didn't have enough competent design teams to do everything they wanted. Their replacement for the A6M just didn't happen, but their replacements for other shipboard aircraft came along just fine. Those designs were quite competitive and arguably superior to the equivalent American designs.
They just didn't realise that without a superior fighter to escord, all the other stuff is basically just targets for the other side's superior fighters.

- Ivan.


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 12, 2018)

Japan could build the domestically-designed Homare 1900 HP radial, but could not build those engines in the quantity necessary to be on the same level as the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, which powered the F4U, F6F, P-47, C-46, B-26, A-26 and more. Japan struggled to build the engines in the hundreds per month, building a total of less than 9,000 during the war, but the United States built 125,000 R-2800 engines, including almost 58,000 built by Ford Motor Company and 11,0000 by Nash.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 14, 2018)

Actually the war with USSR in 1939 was a wake up call for the Japanese but the lesson learnt was the USSR was too strong so have a war with USA instead.
Stupid lesson to be sure. If you dont want a war with the USA then dont invade Phillipines or bomb Pearl Harbour or take thousands prisoner and send them on a death march. 
The Italian fighters used German engines but so? P-51 used a Rolls Royce engine. Not sure the point here.
The Macchi C.202 and Kawasaki Ki-61 were pretty much analogues and the C.202 first saw combat in 1941 and the Kawasaki in 1943. So a delay there plus the C.205 was 400mph in 1943 so certainly ahead of any 400mph Japanese fighter.
The 109 Emil was matching the Kawasaki in 1939 so the Ki-61 fisrt saw service in 1943 and was only as good as an Emil or early mark of Spitfire. Hardly sparkling.

The Fw-190 and the Ki-43 Hayabusa both first saw service in late 1941 which again is a hopeless match up and in a 1940 Battle of Britain style combat the best Japanese fighter was the Ki-27 Nate. Which again is outmatched by any Spitfire.

The modern Japanese fighters you mentioned were all pretty much 1944 in service designs that did 400mph. That would be 3 years behind the 109 Fredrich and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire mk9 was flying combat missions in 1942. So again the Japanese were always behind the curve. 

The fighter prowess of early Japanese fighters were mainly because it was against Hurricanes and Buffalos and Wildcats which had similair ball park perfromance and so hid the relative weaknesses.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 14, 2018)

Japanese politics in the 1920s and 1930s were driven by an aggressive, hyper-nationalistic ideology that is inseparable from their military policies and the behavior of their military leadership. 

Back to the Zero. In 1941, it was, arguably, the best carrier-based fighter ("best" is highly dependent on pilot training and tactics; in 1941, the IJN's pilots were probably the best trained and many had combat experience). Its design was heavily, perhaps excessively, influenced by pilot experience, possibly eschewing analysis of trends in aircraft design and air combat tactics.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Test in August 1943 between Spitfire V and Zero mark 2.

“Both pilots consider Spitfire outclassed by Hap at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet”

Yep, Zero was total junk......

Someone hurry up and say that the Zero’s didn’t actually shoot down the Spitfires over Darwin/northern Australia, the Spitfires just ran out of fuel, because a Zero flying 500 miles one way and running a Spitfire out of fuel over his own airfield before flying back home totally reinforces the idea that the Spitfire was better

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 14, 2018)

What's a Zero Mark 2?


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 14, 2018)

I agree with both The Basket and Pinsong's points. The Basket said that in general Japan was behind the curve of fielding world-class airplanes. Pinsong pointed out that in mid-1942, the A6M-32 was at least as good as a Spitfire V (with Trop filter - but they were fighting in tropical conditions so it is apples-apples). The zero was an island of excellence in a sea of mediocrity. My thesis that the Zero was "too good" is that the Zero was good enough to have a good shot at initial conquests, but the zero never had teh legs to sustain or defend those conquests, and more to the point. Japan's industrial base een if everything went right, could not match the Allies, especially the US. In other threads we speculated what would have happened if the US had never built the Hellcat or the Corsair. I am with those who say the war wouldn't have changed very much. Overwhelming numbers of F4Fs would have swamped the Japanese Pacific Empire. It just would have taken a little longer, and the US would have suffered higher casualties. The FM2 "wilder wildcat" had a 7-1 kill ratio, even though, on paper, its specs aren't much different from the F4F-3 from 1941. (It was better at low altitudes - worse up high.) The converse though, that without the Zero, if the Japanese would have had to make do with a different plane, one that was not as optimized for the technology available, for example the Ki-43, the conquests of December 1941 to May 1942 would have been impossible. The A6M-21 was within 10% or so of the top speed of the best fighers fo the day. On the other hand, the Zero had a combat radius that in some case doubled the best fighters of the day - and it could operate from aircraft carriers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> What's a Zero Mark 2?



Since the report mentions the "Hap", I'm guessing it's an A6M3 Model 32. Of course, the Model 32 only went into production in April 1942 which is just a few months before the MkIX Spitfire reached the front line, so I'm not convinced it's a valid comparison against a contemporary version of the Spit.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Italian fighters used German engines but so? P-51 used a Rolls Royce engine. Not sure the point here.
> The Macchi C.202 and Kawasaki Ki-61 were pretty much analogues and the C.202 first saw combat in 1941 and the Kawasaki in 1943. So a delay there plus the C.205 was 400mph in 1943 so certainly ahead of any 400mph Japanese fighter.
> The 109 Emil was matching the Kawasaki in 1939 so the Ki-61 fisrt saw service in 1943 and was only as good as an Emil or early mark of Spitfire. Hardly sparkling.



Hello The Basket,
The point I was addressing was your rather unfavorable comparison between Italian fighter design and Japanese fighter design.
Please don't try to obfuscate.
While the Macchi C.202 and Kawasaki Ki 61-I both used engines derived from the German DB 601Aa, the path taken was quite different.
The Italians were quite content to build the engine as a copy. The Japanese tried to rework the engine to reduce weight and raise the critical altitude which they achieved. The Kawasaki Ha-40 engine with a critical altitude of 4300 meters is only a couple hundred meters below the DB 601A-1 which the Germans did not export.
The point remains that the Italians were never able to produce a competitive fighter using domestic technology while the Japanese did.

I was not claiming Japanese fighter technology and development was particularly advanced by European standards but it was quite competitive against what was fielded against them in the Pacific theatre. They simply never had the numbers and didn't have the pilot quality at the end to exploit the qualities of their aircraft..... or supplies to run them or the ability to maintain production quality....



The Basket said:


> The Fw-190 and the Ki-43 Hayabusa both first saw service in late 1941 which again is a hopeless match up and in a 1940 Battle of Britain style combat the best Japanese fighter was the Ki-27 Nate. Which again is outmatched by any Spitfire.
> 
> The modern Japanese fighters you mentioned were all pretty much 1944 in service designs that did 400mph. That would be 3 years behind the 109 Fredrich and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire mk9 was flying combat missions in 1942. So again the Japanese were always behind the curve.



Fighters are designed to the requirements of the services that use them.
The Ki 43 Hayabusa would never have fit the German philosophy and the FW 190A didn't really fit the Japanese philosophy.
If you look at the J2M Raiden, in performance, it was similar at least in concept to the FW 190A, but it wasn't particularly popular with the Japanese even though Allied evaluations were quite favourable.

Regarding your 400 MPH standard: That was not high on the priorities for the Japanese. Note that in the discussion of requirements for the 12-Shi fighter that became the A6M, Genda favoured maneuverability while Shibata favoured speed. Genda won the argument and we know the result.
As an example, Americans at the time favoured speed over maneuverability and climb as can be seen by the development of the P-37 / P-40 from the P-36. The Japanese didn't share that opinion.

By the way, when did the Italians ever develop a 400 MPH fighter using their own technology?

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> What's a Zero Mark 2?



Legit question because “Zero Mark 2” isn’t a designation. They also called it a Hap instead of a Hamp


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> What's a Zero Mark 2?



The Japanese called the A6M2 Model 21 a Type 0 Mark I and the A6M3 (Model 32, Model 22) and A6M5 (Model 52) were the Type 0 Mark II.
They considered the Mark I to be superior at "Medium and Low altitudes, but the Mark II becomes progressively better at 8000 meters and above".
It is interesting to note that Pinsog's evaluation is all below 8000 meters.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

I would note that the Japanese did field for trials a small number of the Ki-44 at the end of 1941 which puts them not quite as far behind the FW 190 as it looks at first glance. 
Japanese may have gotten the licence for the DB 601 a bit later?
Italians could not supply all their own needs for DB 601 engines from their own factories and were dependent on importing engines from Germany in order to keep production numbers up. A Luxury Japan did not have. 

Itis one thing to design and airframe, it is quite another to have a powerful, compact and light weight engine to go with it at the right time. 
I would also note that trying to Machi 202s in the south pacific might not have gone well given their shorter range/less fuel capacity. And the 202 was certainly no advance over the Ki 61 in firepower. 

Speed is not the only criteria to go by.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Legit question because “Zero Mark 2” isn’t a designation. They also called it a Hap instead of a Hamp



See my earlier post. "Hap" was the initial name given to the Model 32...right up to the point where Hap Arnold expressed his displeasure at his name being associated with an enemy aircraft. A ensuing scramble resulted in the name being changed to "Hamp".


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Since the report mentions the "Hap", I'm guessing it's an A6M3 Model 32. Of course, the Model 32 only went into production in April 1942 which is just a few months before the MkIX Spitfire reached the front line, so I'm not convinced it's a valid comparison against a contemporary version of the Spit.



It’s a valid comparison of 2 fighters that would, could and did meet in combat. It has been expressed multiple times both in this thread and all over this forum that the Zero was at best a 2nd rate fighter that could not compete with European fighters and only got its reputation from battling worn out cast off planes flown by untrained incompetent pilots.

Yet, right here we have 2 pilots flying both planes saying it is superior to the Spitfire V under 20,000 feet. Same test says the Spit “slightly outclimbs the Zero at 26,000” and “the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that allow it to gain an advantage over a Hap in equal circumstances”

Appears to me that the Zero could fight a Spit V on equal footing after flying 500 miles 1 way, then fly home. Could a Spitfire, 109 or 190 do that? Nope.

Since a Spitfire and 109 were almost always on par with each other, it stands to reason that a Zero could probably hold its own with a 109 as well.

That doesn’t sound like the Zero was the overestimated turd it is accused of being. That being said, I would not want to be in a Zero and tangle with an FW190 (the 190 being so close to a Corsair in overall performance)


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> See my earlier post. "Hap" was the initial name given to the Model 32...right up to the point where Hap Arnold expressed his displeasure at his name being associated with an enemy aircraft. A ensuing scramble resulted in the name being changed to "Hamp".



I agree 100%. I read that same article. Funny, Hap Arnold was not amused!


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The Japanese called the A6M2 Model 21 a Type 0 Mark I and the A6M3 (Model 32, Model 22) and A6M5 (Model 52) were the Type 0 Mark II.
> They considered the Mark I to be superior at "Medium and Low altitudes, but the Mark II becomes progressively better at 8000 meters and above".
> It is interesting to note that Pinsog's evaluation is all below 8000 meters.
> 
> - Ivan.


The test went all the way up to 27,000 feet. I just didn’t post it all. It said above 20,000 or so, if the Spitfire had 3-4,000 feet of altitude over the Zero then it could boom and zoom at will. Well hooray, an F4F-3 could do that to a Zero with 4,000 of alititude. Almost any contemporary fighter could do that to its foe with a height advantage like that


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

I believe the Zero had 3 issues:
1. Roll rate. Above 300 it simply couldn’t roll. If you had altitude in an American fighter, doesn’t matter which one, P39, P40, Wildcat or even Buffalo, point nose down attain 300 mph, roll right and pull out. If the Zero could roll like a P36 none of the early fighters could break contact unless a friend shot the Zero off him

2. Pilot armor. It didn’t need 500 pounds of armor. A simple 100 pound plate behind pilot would have barely lowered performance and yet saved countless Japanese pilots.

3. Fuel tanks. It’s my understanding that Zero fuel tanks were form fitted within the wing and when hit by 50 BMG bullets would cause structural damage when they ruptured as well as burning (much like shooting a full can of beer or coke with a rifle). If this is true, then the tanks should have been redesigned with space between them and aircraft skin and self sealing added later.

If these 3 things had been done (I rate the roll rate as most important) then it would have been even more dangerous than it was historically


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I believe the Zero had 3 issues:
> 1. Roll rate. Above 300 it simply couldn’t roll. If you had altitude in an American fighter, doesn’t matter which one, P39, P40, Wildcat or even Buffalo, point nose down attain 300 mph, roll right and pull out. If the Zero could roll like a P36 none of the early fighters could break contact unless a friend shot the Zero off him
> 
> 2. Pilot armor. It didn’t need 500 pounds of armor. A simple 100 pound plate behind pilot would have barely lowered performance and yet saved countless Japanese pilots.
> ...



Hello Pinsog,
I believe there were a couple more issues with the Type Zero Fighter.

4. Its maximum diving speed Vne was very low. In the manual, it is stated that the long wing variants (A6M2 Model 21 and A6M3 Model 22) had a maximum diving speed of 340 knots or 391 MPH. The short wing variants (A6M3 Model 32 and A6M5 Model 52) had a 360 knot or 414 MPH limit. These are extraordinarily low numbers when compared to its opponents.

5. It's structural strength is very low. Maximum G load is somewhere between 6.3 and 7.0 or possibly even as low as 6G depending on the source of information.

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Valid points. Not sure if dive speed was an issue when facing earlier allied fighters, before 1943. For instance, in tests, the Zero and Wildcat dived at the same speed, but the Zero engine cutout from negative G in a pushover where the Wildcat didn’t and of course the Wildcat could roll at high speed and Zero couldn’t. I have also read accounts of P39 and P40 pilots that dived several thousand feet and the Zero stuck right with them until shot at by another pilot.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> It’s a valid comparison of 2 fighters that would, could and did meet in combat. It has been expressed multiple times both in this thread and all over this forum that the Zero was at best a 2nd rate fighter that could not compete with European fighters and only got its reputation from battling worn out cast off planes flown by untrained incompetent pilots.
> 
> Yet, right here we have 2 pilots flying both planes saying it is superior to the Spitfire V under 20,000 feet. Same test says the Spit “slightly outclimbs the Zero at 26,000” and “the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that allow it to gain an advantage over a Hap in equal circumstances”
> 
> ...



I can't speak for the entire forum 'cos I haven't read every single thread )) but I think you're overstating the comments on this thread. It's clearly not the case that the Zero suddenly became a turd as soon as it faced half-decent opposition but, equally, much of the Zero's mystique back in WW2 and ever since results from its performance in the period Dec 41 thru about May 42 when it was up against second-rate airframes and relatively inexperienced (not untrained and not incompetent!) pilots. 

The Zero was a remarkable aircraft but it had a number of deficiencies that were thrown into stark relief when Japan lost the strategic initiative. Its armament wasn't the greatest and its maneuverability fell off rapidly at higher speeds. The latter attribute is particularly telling since the Zero provided exactly what IJN pilots asked for...but, unfortunately, that was not what was needed as the war progressed.

I'm intrigued by the statement in the test report that “the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that allow it to gain an advantage over a Hap in equal circumstances”. Frankly, if any fighter pilot is allowing the enemy to engage on an equal footing then he's doing it wrong. Why on earth would you seek to engage an adversary "in equal circumstances"? That's grossly unsound from a tactical perspective. You want to engage when it best suits your aircraft and the attributes it possesses. 

I wonder if there isn't some "Zero mythology" creeping into the report...or, at least, some political spin in an attempt to secure higher-performance aircraft for the theatre (not unreasonable, I must add!). Some of the contradictions in the report suggest that this latter point may be pertinent, for example "the Spit is outclassed by the Hap at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet" and yet "at a speed of 330mph it was much more difficult for Hap to follow Spit in diving aileron rolls." That speed is still well short of the Spit MkV's maximum speed, even with a Vokes filter. I'd really like to know how the test was set up and what were the starting conditions for each run. Such details can have a marked impact on the results. 

Finally, yes the Zero Model 32 may have met the Spit MkV in combat but that still doesn't mean they're contemporaries. The Gladiator met the Me109 in combat but I don't think anyone would suggest they were contemporaneous. The key point is that, for all its many attributes, the Zero was still lagging behind fighter development in other countries in a number of key performance parameters and Japan lacked the resources to overcome those shortfalls, particularly given the intense rivalry between the IJN and IJA. The Zero was a remarkable aircraft for 1940, sweeping all before it during the early months of the war. However, that performance came at a cost. There's no free lunch in aircraft design and the Zero simply couldn't keep up with the opposition as the war progressed.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Post #5 on this thread.

Agree 100% that the Zero design could not be stretched like many other designs late war.

Agreed that Zero wasn’t perfect, but if it could only have rolled at high speed, pre 1943 fighters could not have escaped it. 

The Spitfire had no “ace in the hole” maneuver to escape a Zero. A P40, with some altitude, could roll and dive away from a Zero or Spitfire. A P36 could outroll, loop, or out turn a Spitfire or 109. A P47 could outroll and dive away from a 109. These are all examples of last ditch, ace in the hole escape maneuvers. The Spitfire didn’t have one of these plans against a Zero, climb was virtually the same, speed below 20,000 was too close for Spitfire to use as escape, turn a couple times and your speed is below 250 and your dead. These pilots were trying to figure out how not to die against the Zero, they weren’t getting new planes no matter what the tests said because the Brit’s were worried more about Germany and couldnt/wouldn’t give any more planes. 

On top of all this, NOTHING in Europe had the ability to escort anything much past the end of the airfield. The Zero could escort bombers 500 miles 1 way, fight a Mark V Spitfire on at least equal ground and then fly home.

Was the Zero the greatest fighter ever? No. But to say it wasn’t a 1st line fighter at least equal to anything in Europe except the 190 is revisionist. Any Allied fighter pilot in that theater at that time was fully aware of how scary the Zero was. I for one am glad it couldn’t roll at high speed or there would have been countless more allied pilots that never made it home

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2018)

Again, it rather depends on which mark of Spitfire you're talking about. You can't take one example of the Spit MkV and apply it to all variants of the type. Compare the Model 32 against the contemporaneous Spit MkIX and I suspect the outcome of the trial would be rather different.

As to the range question, yes that was remarkable...but, then again, Japan HAD to have that kind of range in order to achieve its strategic objectives. It all comes back to my prior point about Japan not thinking about the strategic consequences of it's rapid gallop across the Pacific. Japan HAD to have long-range fighters because the various island outposts weren't mutually supporting. This issue became readily apparent at Guadalcanal where, despite having the ABILITY to reach a distant target and engage the US fighters, the Zero proved incapable of wresting air superiority from the Wildcats and P-39s defending Henderson Field.

It's all well and good flying a long way and fighting...but you have to achieve some kind of outcome. The Zero failed to meet that objective.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 14, 2018)

The Macchi C.202 isnt Italian?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Valid points. Not sure if dive speed was an issue when facing earlier allied fighters, before 1943. For instance, in tests, the Zero and Wildcat dived at the same speed, but the Zero engine cutout from negative G in a pushover where the Wildcat didn’t and of course the Wildcat could roll at high speed and Zero couldn’t. I have also read accounts of P39 and P40 pilots that dived several thousand feet and the Zero stuck right with them until shot at by another pilot.



Hello Pinsog,
The equivalent listing in the manual for the F4F-4 is 475 knots or 546 MPH and the F4F-4 is certainly a contemporary.
Another problem with the A6M series was that their elevator got very heavy in a "high speed" dive.
In fairness, the roll rate of the Wildcat wasn't really that high. I believe at its best, it was only about 70 degrees / second. At lower speeds, the huge ailerons on the A6M gave it a very high roll rate.
I haven't found a good reference for how much of that roll rate is lost for each aircraft under G load though.

I believe that this evaluation misses a very important performance advantage of the Spitfire Mk.V.
It was about 30 MPH faster at its best altitude and that wasn't much over 20,000 feet. I believe part of the problem of the "no advantage to the Spitfire" was that the pilots were trying to play a maneuvering game against Hap and it is stupid to fight the way the other fellow fights best.

Hello The Basket,
The Macchi C.202 Folgore is certainly Italian. It just happens to use a German engine, thus does not qualify as all domestic technology. I would consider an imported engine design pretty significant help from abroad, wouldn't you?

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Quick note here, I'm not a Zero lover, I'm not a Spitfire hater. What I perceive here is, right or wrong, the same thing you see when some mega sports star finally loses, i.e. Rhonda Rousey, Mike Tyson, Alabama football team, whatever your sport is. Rhonda Rousey dominated her sport for several years, her matches were many times measured in seconds, when she finally gets beaten it becomes "she wasn't really that good" "Mike Tyson wasn't really that good", "XXXX wasn't really that good". I see that with the Zero.

I meant to add this earlier, you don't on purpose start a fight with a Zero on an equal footing. But sometimes you don't have a choice, Wildcats might not have time to get above them, P39 and P40 were UNABLE to climb above them at all. A Spitfire might start the fight by making a pass at a Zero from 30'000, maybe the Zero out turns him, maybe another Zero turns into the Spitfire, the Spitfire breaks off and dives. Zero follows him, they do a few turns on the way down, suddenly they are below 20,000 feet. Now the Spitfire has no advantage, speed difference isn't enough for him to run away, he doesn't have enough fuel if the Zero is between him and his airfield. He can't out climb the Zero to escape. He is in deep trouble. He is out of options and it quickly turns into a turning fight, airspeed bleeds off and suddenly he is right in the Zeros wheelhouse.

You are correct that the Zero did not achieve all the strategic objectives. But neither did the 109 at the Battle of Britain. Neither did the 109 in the desert campaign vs mostly Hurricanes and P40's. Neither did the 109 and 190 over Russia. Sure they overran the Russians for a little while and shot up a lot of I16's and such, but they eventually lost. Does that make the 109 or 190 a bad plane?

When did the Spitfire achieve air superiority over someone else airspace?

How would the start of the war gone for Japan if they had the F4F4 Wildcat and the US had the Zero? I would say not very good.
How would the war have ended if Japan had the F4F4 Wildcat and the US had the Zero? Exactly the way it did historically, with a huge mushroom cloud over 2 major cities.

Nothing the Japanese did would have changed the outcome of the war (unless they developed nukes). The US could have eventually established total air supremacy over Japan with B17's if they had chosen simply because they could have built more B17's than Japan could build any and every type of plane they built.

That being said, strategic failures, many if not most attributed to poor planning by high level officers should not take away from the abilities the Zero fighter possessed. It was indeed a worthy adversary for any allied plane before 1943 and one of the best of the early war. Like the Zero or not, no other fighter of that era could do what the Zero did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 14, 2018)

The Zero used Oerlikon cannon. Wouldnt that be classed as help from abroad?


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pinsog,
> The equivalent listing in the manual for the F4F-4 is 475 knots or 546 MPH and the F4F-4 is certainly a contemporary.
> Another problem with the A6M series was that their elevator got very heavy in a "high speed" dive.
> 
> ...



Hello Ivan.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

I tried to copy the one paragraph on the Zero vs F4F4 but it wouldn't let me. In mock combat they say on here that they were equal in dive speed except for the pushover where the Zeros engine cuts out


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Zero used Oerlikon cannon. Wouldnt that be classed as help from abroad?



Who is this directed to?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

The 'on paper' outdated - Hayabusa was, in late 1943, conclusively proving to the RAF Hurricanes over Burma,
which of the two of them - was, truly outdated..

Well, that is, until the latest Spitfire Mk VIII's arrived, & ironically - by adopting the same 'boom & zoom' tactics
which the LW 109/190s used against them - proved the point.

A an experienced Kiwi Spitfire pilot, who'd fought the LW in Africa & Europe, Alan Pearl - when interviewed by
Norman Franks noted:

"They were not heavily armoured, & our .303s could put a lot of destructive metal into them. The cannons
caused obvious & serious damage. This was not the case with Me 109s, where I have hit one with M-Gs
from behind, only to see the bullets ricocheting off."

I'd add that the noxious lack of cooperation between IJN & IJA, wasn't limited to the forces of Nippon,
the RAF too, was notorious for its attitude towards the 'senior service', with detriment to the FAA,
& I don't doubt - the centuries old US inter-service rivalry surely continues yet..

'Remember gentlemen, the Nazis/Nips/Commies - may be our adversary, but the Navy is our Enemy!'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The 'on paper' outdated - Hayabusa was, in late 1943, conclusively proving to the RAF Hurricanes over Burma,
> which of the two of them - was, truly outdated..
> 
> Well, that is, until the latest Spitfire Mk VIII's arrived, & ironically - by adopting the same 'boom & zoom' tactics
> ...



I am sadly deficient in my knowledge of the Burma campaign mid war time line. You are saying the Zero was beating the Hurricanes until the Spitfire Mk VIII arrived? (I hope so, that is what I think happened)

By late 1943 the Zero was in trouble with the current frontline fighters, F6F, F4U, P38, P47 and late model Spitfires. They all had the power and speed to dictate terms of engagement.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Hello Ivan.
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf
> 
> I tried to copy the one paragraph on the Zero vs F4F4 but it wouldn't let me. In mock combat they say on here that they were equal in dive speed except for the pushover where the Zeros engine cuts out



Hello Pinsog,
I have seen this as well. I can tell you that the numbers I listed came out of the manual for each aircraft.
I suspect that the IIS 85 test report was done without benefit of having the flight manual of the A6M2b that was being tested and perhaps they were really meaning dive acceleration rather than maximum dive speed. I am not in a position to resolve this.
By the way, J.A.W was referring to the Army Type 1 Fighter Hayabusa, not the Navy Type 0 Fighter.

On a somewhat irrelevant note, I am also a fan of Ronda Rousey, but after her fight with Bethe Correia, it was pretty obvious that her defence was not that good against a striker and that sooner or later someone was going to land a really hard shot to take her out. I would have wanted to see her retire on top though.
I am also convinced that Mike Tyson would have beaten the count against Buster Douglas if he hadn't gone looking for his mouth piece and who know where the fight would have gone after that....

Hello The Basket,
There is a pretty big difference between an imported cannon design and an imported engine design. The cannon was not essential to the A6M's flight performance while the DB 601Aa was quite essential to the design and performance of the Macchi C.202 and most late war Italian fighters.
This is somewhat pitiful when one considers the Macchi racing floatplanes that competed back in the 1930's.
I also did not list the A6M among the competitive late war Japanese fighters in any case.

- Ivan.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Quick note here, I'm not a Zero lover, I'm not a Spitfire hater. What I perceive here is, right or wrong, the same thing you see when some mega sports star finally loses, i.e. Rhonda Rousey, Mike Tyson, Alabama football team, whatever your sport is. Rhonda Rousey dominated her sport for several years, her matches were many times measured in seconds, when she finally gets beaten it becomes "she wasn't really that good" "Mike Tyson wasn't really that good", "XXXX wasn't really that good". I see that with the Zero.



Not from me. I'm just telling it like it was. 



pinsog said:


> I meant to add this earlier, you don't on purpose start a fight with a Zero on an equal footing. But sometimes you don't have a choice, Wildcats might not have time to get above them, P39 and P40 were UNABLE to climb above them at all.



Correct...and yet the US air assets at Henderson still succeeded and the Zero failed. 




pinsog said:


> Spitfire might start the fight by making a pass at a Zero from 30'000, maybe the Zero out turns him, maybe another Zero turns into the Spitfire, the Spitfire breaks off and dives. Zero follows him, they do a few turns on the way down, suddenly they are below 20,000 feet. Now the Spitfire has no advantage, speed difference isn't enough for him to run away, he doesn't have enough fuel if the Zero is between him and his airfield. He can't out climb the Zero to escape. He is in deep trouble. He is out of options and it quickly turns into a turning fight, airspeed bleeds off and suddenly he is right in the Zeros wheelhouse.



So much assumption in this section that I don't even know where to start. Firstly, one-on-one combats were absolutely the rarity and so this type of hypothetical scenario in a complex multi-aircraft (or even multi-formation) environment adds little to the reality of understanding of the situation. As to the comment that "he doesn't have enough fuel if the Zero is between him and his airfield" is absolute nonsense, I'm afraid. You make it sound like the Zero could remain on-station indefinitely while the Spitfire had to RTB after 5 minutes. And, yet again, you're treating all Spitfires as being the same which is patently not the case.




pinsog said:


> You are correct that the Zero did not achieve all the strategic objections. But neither did the 109 at the Battle of Britain. Neither did the 109 in the desert campaign vs mostly Hurricanes and P40's. Neither did the 109 and 190 over Russia. Sure they overran the Russians for a little while and shot up a lot of I16's and such, but they eventually lost. Does that make the 109 or 190 a bad plane?



You can't compare a large scale air campaign against widespread assets like the Battle of Britain with something like Guadalcanal where the fight was over a single airfield. Even in North Africa, the air campaign ebbed and flowed. I don't get the impression that air superiority over Henderson was ever seriously in doubt...yes, it was under threat of being overrun by ground forces but air superiority remained under American control.




pinsog said:


> When did the Spitfire achieve air superiority over someone else airspace?



I'd say Burma would be a good candidate. 




pinsog said:


> Like the Zero or not, no other fighter of that era could do what the Zero did.



Again, it was not a good fighter for the entire era. It was a great fighter in 1940 but by 1944 it was inadequate at best. That's evolution for you...and the Zero didn't or couldn't.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pinsog,
> I have seen this as well. I can tell you that the numbers I listed came out of the manual for each aircraft.
> I suspect that the IIS 85 test report was done without benefit of having the flight manual of the A6M2b that was being tested and perhaps they were really meaning dive acceleration rather than maximum dive speed. I am not in a position to resolve this.



You may be correct, I don't know either. I always assumed that the Wildcat could and did dive faster and I was surprised to read in this report that (as I interpreted it) they dived at the same speed with initial acceleration going to the Wildcat due to Zeros engine cutting out. I could easily be convinced either way.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2018)

Ultimate dive speed is not the same as practical or useable dive speed.

IF you don't accelerate rapidly in a dive then you don't get out of gun range quick enough to save yourself. 
reaching a significantly higher speed _after _your opponent runs out of ammo doesn't do you any good. 

I believe the F4F was the Last Navy fighter that had to pass the terminal velocity dive test. The USN required that a test plane climb up to a certain altitude and then perform a vertical dive such as the plane simply would not go any faster, drag equaled force of gravity. 

THis could take thousands of feet to achieve and obviously varies with the height the dive was started and the density of the air the plane was going through. It also points to the F4F not diving fast enough to really run into compressibility problems.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Not from me. I'm just telling it like it was.
> 
> I showed a report from a test from 2 pilots flying in mock combat with each other and you suggested in post 62 that "some Zero mythology might have crept into the report"
> 
> ...


In my head this made sense, but I should have defined "era" as Zero introduction to january 1 1943. In my previous posts I stated "against pre 1943 Allied fighters". Also said in post 72 "By late 1943 the Zero was in trouble with the current frontline fighters, F6F, F4U, P38, P47 and late model Spitfires. They all had the power and speed to dictate terms of engagement."


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ultimate dive speed is not the same as practical or useable dive speed.
> 
> IF you don't accelerate rapidly in a dive then you don't get out of gun range quick enough to save yourself.
> reaching a significantly higher speed _after _your opponent runs out of ammo doesn't do you any good.
> ...



To clarify Shortround6, would you say "practical diving speed" of the Zero and F4F was the same? That would mean the F4F didn't actually draw out of range, but instead got fast enough to roll out of the way of the Zero after his controls stiffened up.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 14, 2018)

For sure SR6, acceleration in the dive, & control at/over Vne,
- to enable 'drawing a bead' on fleeing 'quarry', & the structural integrity to
safely accept coarse control inputs - when evading hard-out - are important.

Not many WW2 roll charts extend out that far though..


----------



## pinsog (Apr 14, 2018)

I'm having to bash the Spitfire (which I actually like) to make a point about the Zero (which I respect more than I actually like). So many things in debates like this do not make sense. The plane with the best record against the Zero, pre 1943, was the plane that had NOT 1 single performance advantage against the Zero, the F4F. Now it could roll at high speed, but thats it. It was slower, climbed slower and turned worse. The plan in an F4F was to let your buddy shoot him off you or fly straight and level and let him shoot you until he ran out of ammo. Thats the plane that has the best record. This makes no sense to me and probably to no one else, but it was a fact.

The Zero was a fine aircraft with a few flaws or compromises (just like any other fighter). Fantastic range, fast enough for early war time period (pre 1943), climbed well and at an extremely steep angle. Weapons were fine for the time period (pre 1943). Needed armor, self sealing tanks and high speed roll rate fixed. I think it would have held its own against the 109, it did hold its own against the Spit V with tropical kit installed and would have done poorly, very poorly against 190.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Don't forget, the F4F - was flown by top-gun USN fighter jocks, who deployed the dreaded 'Thach Weave',
to negate the advantages of Johnny Nippon's hot-shot Zero..


----------



## The Basket (Apr 15, 2018)

I have reflected deeply on this subject.
And I still class the Macchi as an Italian fighter. Even with a German engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 15, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I have reflected deeply on this subject.
> And I still class the Macchi as an Italian fighter. Even with a German engine.


And I am sure all Americans consider the P-51 an American fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

Does anyone know why the 109F had a moteur-cannon fitted by early `41,
but the Italian DB 601 & Nippon Kawasaki DB-analog powered aircraft - never did?


----------



## taly01 (Apr 15, 2018)

All the "accepted" history of the Wildcat (and P-40) been worse than the Zero is true, but they were both of *very similar* performance and generation, and it came alot down to the pilot......unlike the Hellcat or P-38 which if flown within its best performance limits dominated any Zero.

I'd say the Zero improved more than the Wildcat during the war. The Zero A6M5 was probably better'er than an Wildcat FM-2, than a Zero A6M2 was over the Wildcat F4F-3?!?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I have reflected deeply on this subject.
> And I still class the Macchi as an Italian fighter. Even with a German engine.



Sure was, after all a P-51D is an American fighter..

& still would be, even if it had a Ford-built Merlin slotted in, under the hood,
- no less than a Spit XVI is a British fighter - when Packard Merlin powered..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 15, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Does anyone know why the 109F had a moteur-cannon fitted by early `41,
> but the Italian DB 601 & Nippon Kawasaki DB-analog powered aircraft - never did?


the 109F used differents model of DB 601


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

The DB V12 series 601/603/605 were designed to accept such a fit, for single-engined fighter use,
so could it have been more of gun issue?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Sure was, after all a P-51D is an American fighter..
> 
> & still would be, even if it had a Ford-built Merlin slotted in, under the hood,
> - no less than a Spit XVI is a British fighter - when Packard Merlin powered..


Packard built Merlins, not Ford. Packard was it's own company in the 1940's and was later purchased by the Chrysler corporation in the 1950's.

And for the record, the Macci M.C202 was powered by an Alfa Romeo RC-41, which was manufacutered under license from Daimler-Benz. The Folgore's design was native to the Italians, that it had an engine designed from another source does not make it any less Italian.

Just like the original Bf109 was powered by a Rolls Royce Kestral. So was the first Ju87.
The Ju52 used a BMW132 radial engine - which was a licensed Pratt & Whitney R-1690 - which, by the way, was the genesis for the BMW801.

The Soviet TB-3 bomber was powered by the Mikulin M-17 V-12, which was a licensed BMW VI.

And while we're on the subject (supposedly) about Japanese aircraft, let's look at their engines:
Aichi Atsuta AE1A: DB601
Hitachi GK4: Hirth HM 504
Kawasaki Ha-40: DB601A
Mistubishi Kinsei Ha-33: Pratt & Whitney R-1690 (modified)
Nakajima Ha-1 Radial: Bristol Jupiter
And so on.

None of this has anything to do with the A6M or the discussion, to be honest...


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Ford sure did build Merlins.. & in bulk..
It was Ford UK, yes, but AFAIR, its always been owned by Detroit..


----------



## yulzari (Apr 16, 2018)

taly01 said:


> I'd say the Zero improved more than the Wildcat during the war. The Zero A6M5 was probably better'er than an Wildcat FM-2, than a Zero A6M2 was over the Wildcat F4F-3?!?


FWIW The Wildcat was still being used by the FAA over Norway as a fighter in 1945.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Ju52 used a BMW132 radial engine - which was a licensed Pratt & Whitney R-1690 - which, by the way, was the genesis for the BMW801.
> 
> Mistubishi Kinsei Ha-33: Pratt & Whitney R-1690 (modified)



In both cases the "modifications" include turning a 9 cylinder engine into a 14 cylinder and while the BMW 801 used the same bore (or within a few tenths of a millimeter) they shortened the stroke by about 6mm. On the Kinsei the bore shrank by about 16mm and the stroke by about 12mm.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> The DB V12 series 601/603/605 were designed to accept such a fit, for single-engined fighter use,
> so could it have been more of gun issue?


in the early variant of 601 that not worked, only from N variant the motorgun working ok, or better the engine worked ok


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

From the design stage, the DB 601 was intended to be able to mount a cannon,
but it appears it had to wait for the new, more compact, MG 151/20 gun, so maybe
the foreign users of the DB analog engines - lacked an equivalent cannon - to fit?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 16, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I have reflected deeply on this subject.
> And I still class the Macchi as an Italian fighter. Even with a German engine.





KiwiBiggles said:


> And I am sure all Americans consider the P-51 an American fighter.



Hello The Basket, KiwiBiggles,
I am not disputing that the Macchi C.202 or C.205 or all the other late war Itialian fighters were not Italian designs. I am just of the opinion that they were not possible without German engine technology.
The big difference with the P-51 is that it was quite a viable fighter even when equipped with the Allison engines. It just didn't have the high altitude performance until it got the Merlin.

Hello Taly01,
The FM-2 may not have been a great increase in performance over the F4F-3 but it it should properly be compared to the F4F-4 or FM-1 from an equipment standpoint and from that view was significantly better in performance.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 16, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello The Basket, KiwiBiggles,
> I am not disputing that the Macchi C.202 or C.205 or all the other late war Itialian fighters were not Italian designs. I am just of the opinion that they were not possible without German engine technology.
> The big difference with the P-51 is that it was quite a viable fighter even when equipped with the Allison engines. It just didn't have the high altitude performance until it got the Merlin.
> 
> ...


And the MC.200 was "quite a viable fighter", before it got the DB601 and became the MC.202. I don't see how that's different to the P-51 story.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> From the design stage, the DB 601 was intended to be able to mount a cannon,
> but it appears it had to wait for the new, more compact, MG 151/20 gun, so maybe
> the foreign users of the DB analog engines - lacked an equivalent cannon - to fit?



that was intended is not the same that the engine worked well with the motorgun, actually the first gun mounted in the DB-601N was the MG FF/M, in the 109 F-1.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> And the MC.200 was "quite a viable fighter", before it got the DB601 and became the MC.202. I don't see how that's different to the P-51 story.



Dunno about that.. the obsolescent Hurricane, overseas workhorse of the RAF in the 1st 1/2 of the war,
could handle the radial-powered Italians ( though perhaps Hawker designer Sid Camm did have a close look
at the FIAT G50, since his Sea Fury bears a striking resemblance in profile, with that humped cockpit),
..while the advent of V12 power eclipsed the Hurricane & (along with the 109F/G) necessitated Spitfires.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Vincenzo said:


> that was intended is not the same that the engine worked well with the motorgun, actually the first gun mounted in the DB-601N was the MG FF/M, in the 109 F-1.



& that Oerlikon fitment proved unsatisfactory, as it had earlier when trialled by Heinkel, AFAIR..

( Off the thread topic, but gun related, does anyone know if engine-mount cannon were considered by
the Germans for their twin-engined nightfighters, which would allow more fuselage space for radar tech).


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 16, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> And the MC.200 was "quite a viable fighter", before it got the DB601 and became the MC.202. I don't see how that's different to the P-51 story.





J.A.W. said:


> Dunno about that.. the obsolescent Hurricane, overseas workhorse of the RAF in the 1st 1/2 of the war,
> could handle the radial-powered Italians ( though perhaps Hawker designer Sid Camm did have a close look
> at the FIAT G50, since his Sea Fury bears a striking resemblance in profile, with that humped cockpit),
> ..while the advent of V12 power eclipsed the Hurricane & (along with the 109F/G) necessitated Spitfires.



Hello KiwiBiggles,
I would have to agree with J.A.W. on this one. The Macchi C.200 was hardly a competitive fighter even in the desert war.
The Allison Powered P-51A was still the fastest version of the Mustang below 10,000 feet and could reach about 410 MPH so from a performance standpoint wasn't greatly different from a late war FW 190A-8. This was with a version of the Allison from 1943.

Keep in mind also that the Macchi C.202 wasn't directly descended from the C.200. There was an intermediate type without the hump back that I do not believe ever made it into production. That was the actual version that received the Daimler Benz engine swap.
I do think the Macchi C.202 is a very attractive aeroplane.

- Ivan.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 16, 2018)

Can we get this thread back on-topic anytime soon? Just sayin'!


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

Just saying.. - what?

Seems you could've added some topic content too though, right?

The topical 'Mitsi' was the right bird, in the right place, at the right time, & earned its fame accordingly..
The Allies were 'caught napping' & 'with their pants down' repeatedly, by the sudden, & destructive,
appearance of Zero formations, from Alaska across to Hawaii, down to Australia & up as far as Ceylon..

Nippon sure got value for money from the 'Navy Type-0' & though it was getting past its 'best by date'
after a couple of years in, it could still give a 1/2 decent account of itself - when expertly flown - even then..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ford sure did build Merlins.. & in bulk..
> It was Ford UK, yes, but AFAIR, its always been owned by Detroit..


But the P-51 (which was part of the discussion) never used U.K. manufactured Merlins, it used Packard manufactured Merlins.




Shortround6 said:


> In both cases the "modifications" include turning a 9 cylinder engine into a 14 cylinder and while the BMW 801 used the same bore (or within a few tenths of a millimeter) they shortened the stroke by about 6mm. On the Kinsei the bore shrank by about 16mm and the stroke by about 12mm.


And as you and I both know, these engines started out with a core design that was massaged in one way or another.

But for the sake of the conversation, some folks saying that a foreign engine in a native airframe makes that aircraft foreign, is nonsense.

If we want to get absolutely technical, all fighters were American (regardless of which nation they were produced in) because it was the Wright Brothers who made it all possible.

The reality is, however, it's not where the machine was made, it's how well the pilot flew it in the service of his nation that matters.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> But the P-51 (which was part of the discussion) never used U.K. manufactured Merlins, it used Packard manufactured Merlins.




It could use a British Merlin, even one built by an American company,
& yet it would still be an American fighter - that was my point..

But when did the 1st - combat capable - American fighter aircraft actually show up?
& I don't count SPAD's, SE 5A's or any other European, but US-operated machine.. as such..


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2018)

And what does all of this have to do with the A6M?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

You tell me GG, you're the one who doubted that ol' Henry mass-produced Merlins..
( My take on the specific IJN fighter thread topic - is just a couple of posts up, at No 102, if you are interested).


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> You tell me GG, you're the one who doubted that ol' Henry mass-produced Merlins..
> ( My take on the specific IJN fighter thread topic - is just a couple of posts up, at No 102, if you are interested).


You blathered on about Merlins being made by Ford in an completely off-topic subject about P-51s.

Again...what does this have to do about the A6M?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 17, 2018)

Geez mate, you been back five minutes and already you're in feet first! Good stuff.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> You blathered on about Merlins being made by Ford in an completely off-topic subject about P-51s.
> 
> Again...what does this have to do about the A6M?



Again... you tell me..

Hey man, I was jest goin' with the flow, 
& you got all het up 'bout what ol' man Ford did, or didn't do, building Merlins-wise,
Well you got that wrong, so lose the 'tude, dude..

Then you "blathered on" - ludicrously suggesting the 'Wright Flyer' was the 1st fighter 'plane..
& when I called you on it, & here we are..

Anyhow, AFAIR, a valid service test-pilot's viewpoint on the 'Mitsi' was:

"She's a beaut little sports-plane, handles like a champ, & drinks like a wowser,
but I'll tell ya what, I wouldn't bloody well want to get into a shellfire shitfight, in 'er..."

I'll leave you to guess where that bloke hailed from..


----------



## rednev (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> It could use a British Merlin, even one built by an American company,
> & yet it would still be an American fighter - that was my point..
> 
> But when did the 1st - combat capable - American fighter aircraft actually show up?
> & I don't count SPAD's, SE 5A's or any other European, but US-operated machine.. as such..


maybe the thomas morse mb 3 design 1918 prototype 1919 issued to 1st pursuit group starting jan 1922

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Apr 17, 2018)

Actually arguments about origin of planes is kind of relevant to Zero, as the Americans claimed the Zero was just a copied collection of American technologies, which it kind of is, but its the combination and putting it all together that made the plane. A machine is more than the seperate value of its parts.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> And what does all of this have to do with the A6M?



Gentlemen,
This little tangent came about because The Basket made a comment about Japanese being behind the Italians in fighters.



The Basket said:


> In my book Japan was 4 years behind Western powers with fighters.
> They were even behind the Italians in fighters and I can think of no greater insult!



I pointed out that the Italians never built a competitive late-war fighter without foreign engine technology; All of their best designs were powered by copies of the Daimler Benz engines. The Japanese on the other hand were quite capable of building competitive late war fighters without imported technology....

....followed by a diversion to Oerlikon cannon on the A6M

....followed by a comparison between the Macchi C.202 / 205 with its copy of the DB engines and the P-51 powered by a Merlin.

We are an easily distracted bunch.

- Ivan.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 17, 2018)

Was the Zero a copy? An interesting discussion in its own way. The Gloster F.5/34 is startling similair and was well known and Japan did have links to Gloster so a possible.
One thing that needs mentioning is good old fashioned racism. It would have been the fashion of the day to dismiss Japan as rubbish and thier aircraft made out of bamboo and paper. Also from what I read the intelligence on Japanese aircraft was poor to zip so the Zero was a huge surprise becasue it was unknown and the capabilities was unknown. The reason the Buffalo was in Asia with the RAF was because it was believed the Japanese had no better.

Also the usual Koga's Zero isnt mentioned so the fact a Zero was fully tested and found it has to be added to the mix.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2018)

The team that designed the Zero must have been the masters at copying.
The Zero is supposed to be a copy of
The Gloster F.5/34
The Hughes H-1 racer
The Vultee Vanguard?
The Vought 141/143
and probably a few more

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 17, 2018)

No aircraft is made in a vacuum.
My fave story is the Tupelov designer who had to put the engines somewhere on the Tu-16. Was undecided and then saw a picture of the Comet and winner winner lets put them in the wing roots.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Was the Zero a copy? An interesting discussion in its own way. The Gloster F.5/34 is startling similair and was well known and Japan did have links to Gloster so a possible.
> One thing that needs mentioning is good old fashioned racism. It would have been the fashion of the day to dismiss Japan as rubbish and thier aircraft made out of bamboo and paper. Also from what I read the intelligence on Japanese aircraft was poor to zip so the Zero was a huge surprise becasue it was unknown and the capabilities was unknown. The reason the Buffalo was in Asia with the RAF was because it was believed the Japanese had no better.
> 
> Also the usual Koga's Zero isnt mentioned so the fact a Zero was fully tested and found it has to be added to the mix.



The Zero did not come as a great surprise to the Allies. It had been seen in the skies over China and some pretty accurate assessments of its performance were available to RAF squadrons in Burma, Singapore and Malaya (despite what the history books will tell you about supposed intelligence failures by the Far East Combined Bureau).

The Ki-43 definitely was unknown to the Allies, indeed it took until 1943 for the 2 types to be discretely named.

I will absolutely agree with the racism angle on a number of fronts:

Japanese pilots were often depicted as wearing glasses and were attributed with all sorts of conditions that limited their abilities as fighter pilots, ranging from an inability to see well at night to problems turning their heads to check their six.
Racism also reared its head in depictions of Japanese materials as poorly constructed although, in fairness, the Ki-43 did suffer from wing malformation due to structural weakness, with at least one operational loss over Malaya ascribed to the aircraft breaking apart when pulling up from a dive.
Continued racism (to this day) that, somehow, 5 squadrons of RAF single-engined fighters spread across Burma, Malaya and Singapore were somehow going to be successful in defending against an adversary that massively outnumbered them, and to achieve that victory without an adequate air warning and control system. There were about the same number of Ki-43s on the front line in the 2 Sentai assigned to the Thailand/Malaya/Burma campaign as the RAF had Buffalos in theatre...but there were also another 5 Sentai of Ki-27s on top of that figure, plus the A6Ms of the IJN further south in Indochina. That made a total of over 200 Japanese fighters.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Geez mate, you been back five minutes and already you're in feet first! Good stuff.


Great to see ya' mister, been quite a while!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 18, 2018)

Yep, good to have you back, mate.



> which it kind of is



Like Basket says, nothing is built in a vacuum. If you look at the development of the Zero's predecessors, its design team was influenced by US designs, such as the P-26 (1MF10, anyone?), and their use of existing technologies and concepts was not unprecedented in designing the Zero, but its design is wholly original. To claim it was 'influenced' by the Hughes racer because it looks a bit like it, when there is no actual evidence that it was is being disingenuous and not allowing the Japanese credit for designing what was a very good fighter. All metal, technologically advanced monoplanes were not invented in the USA. The Bf 109 put what was necessary for a early 1940s benchmark fighter together in a service aircraft first, albeit over time - it was a ground breaking machine when it first flew in 1935, yet no one claims it was a copy of American technology.

With regards to the Zero, the claims come directly from prejudice against the Japanese at the time, widely held by all in the west. There was little belief that Asians could build something as advanced and as good as the Zero was, pure and simple. There is no truth in the allegation that it was the result of US aircraft designs being copied.

If you ever get to examine a Zero in detail in the flesh, as I have and others here, you'll begin to appreciate that it was a wholly original design in concept and execution compared to its contemporaries. It owes a lot to its predecessor the A5M, but it is a big advance over it, also. Take efforts to lighten the structure to get the performance necessary. Lightening holes were not a new innovation, but the Zero is littered with them. Its canopy opening and crew access to the cockpit is novel and quite sophisticated for a late 30s design. Splitting the fuselage aft of the wing makes it easy to transport and again, has no precedent in that era. The wing has washout to delay the stall, how many fighters had that applied as an aerodynamic aid in the late '30s? The Bf 109 went with slats. It was a carrier fighter and was robust enough to take the punishment that that entails (gawd, please don't bring in the structurally unsound argument - there's no evidence it ever suffered structural weakness in service), yet it had excellent performance for its day.

Take a look at this thread I posted a few years back. I sourced information from it from a number of places, including a US intelligence document written in 1943. I have a copy, but can't find it.

Mitsubishi A6M3 Type '0' Carrier Fighter in detail

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2018)

Good info, Grant and to add to that, the A6M had a remarkable amount of engineering put into it's design.
Additionally, for a fighter of it's abilities, there was simply no other type that was capable of it's range of 1,900+ miles (3,100+ km) and be able to land on a flight deck, concrete runway, coral airstrip or a grass field.
It was a remarkable aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 18, 2018)

Following on from #116, one of the reasons why the West was so dismissive of Japanese military aviation was directly due to the performance over China. It was widely accepted that the Chinese Air Force was woefully inadequate. Many of its aircraft were obsolescent at best and the quality of its pilots was highly variable. Yet despite these limitations, the Japanese were perceived by Western observers as failing to entirely dominate the air campaign. 

I suspect part of the problem lay in conducting an offensive counter air campaign in your enemy's back yard. Clearly several Western observers failed to comprehend the challenges of maintaining a large fleet of combat aircraft at a sizeable distance from home. 

Japanese combat tactics may also have played their part. There are many reports of Japanese fighter pilots seemingly more interested in building up a personal kill tally than in conducting cooperative engagements. As late as Burma 1942, Allied pilots reported the Japanese fighters apparently "getting in each other's way" while trying to engage an RAF bomber. Clearly, such performance would not be perceived in a positive light by British observers who had been raised on Fighting Area Tactics etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Apr 19, 2018)

taly01 said:


> All the "accepted" history of the Wildcat (and P-40) been worse than the Zero is true, but they were both of *very similar* performance and generation, and it came alot down to the pilot......unlike the Hellcat or P-38 which if flown within its best performance limits dominated any Zero.
> 
> I'd say the Zero improved more than the Wildcat during the war. The Zero A6M5 was probably better'er than an Wildcat FM-2, than a Zero A6M2 was over the Wildcat F4F-3?!?


Regarding Zero performance vs Wildcat and P-40, here's a Zero plotted on top of a P-39K performance chart.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 20, 2018)

The Basket said:


> No aircraft is made in a vacuum.



That's probably because they couldn't fly in a vacuum.

'-)
- Ivan.


----------

