A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity? (1 Viewer)

[NevadaK]

I wonder what the Italian general staff would have thought of any Japanese tanks they were supplied. I can see it now, "See Tony, there's nothing inferior about Italian tanks"

Not all countries are good at all things. I suspect that there was definitely a bit of colonial/western superiority thinking going on. Similarly, the same thinking was applied to the Soviet Union where nothing that country made could measure up to the standards of the west. Those kind of biases can be long lasting and underpinned the Allies reactions in 1941 - 1942 when there was general shock at the capabilities of the Japanese.

 

[GrauGeist]

Japan had quite a few solid military designs, one of which spawned the age of battle cruisers and much later, their I-400 class submarines influenced the next generation of submarines.
But it seems that they were more interested in Western technology than the other way around. They licensed the Douglas DC-2 and DC-3, commissioned Heinkel to build a dive-bomber for them (Heinkel He66 which Aichi based their D1A on) and so on.

Even Japan's Colonel Ishida was interested both in the Soviet T-34 and the German Tiger as options for home defense.

 

[sotaro]

They had radios. They just didn't work. Radio Systems in the Early A6M Zero

I would argue that the lack of radios contributed to the IJN Zero pilots fighting as individuals as opposed to organized groups. The Luftwaffe definitely has nothing to learn from the IJN about the doctrine of bomber escorting.

Not only was the installation poorly grounded, but the atmospherics produced a lot of static electricity due to natural phenomena. This phenomena was clearly out of the control of the radio designers, but the installation was poor.

 

[sotaro]

The only thing the Zero offers the Germans in the BoB is endurance. The Germans weren't dumb, if they wanted a high endurance single engine, single-seat fighter they would make one. What the Japanese might do is demonstrate its benefits in time for the Bf 109G's long range to be applied to the BoB era 109E.

The great limitation in aircraft development is engineering staff and funding to develop projects. Other than the US, there were significant shortages of skilled engineers to do the work. Using someone else's work is a bit of a time saver.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not only was the installation poorly grounded, but the atmospherics produced a lot of static electricity due to natural phenomena. This phenomena was clearly out of the control of the radio designers, but the installation was poor.

We see this mention of atmospheric interference over the South Pacific, but that's a baseline that impacts everyone equally. If poor installation is what sets the Japanese apart from British and American aircraft radios, why do we give Japan a pass due to atmospheric interference?

 

[PAT303]

The A6M got much of it's range by being light because it was unprotected and flying low and slow over open ocean or unpopulated jungle, none of those traits will benefit it over the ETO.

 

[ThomasP]

The A6M2 with DT had a range of ~1200 miles at 250 mph TAS/200 IAS (max economic cruise) at 15,000 ft, with enough fuel for 20 minutes of combat (max power) and 30 minutes reserve (at best economic cruise). Under the same flight profile adding SSFT would decrease the range by ~200 miles. Adding SSFT and armour would have a relatively small effect on speed, while maneuverability and ROC would drop to about Spitfire II level.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The A6M2 with DT had a range of ~1200 miles at 250 mph TAS/200 IAS

Looking at the Zero's Wikipedia ferry range of 3,102 km (1,927 mi, 1,675 nmi), it must have been an exhausting eight hours, especially if navigating over water or at night. No auto pilot, no radio, etc. Of course flying a P-51 escorting B-17/24 raids must have been brutal too.

The A6M was the right aircraft for Japan's war. All it needs is a German radio, plus guidance of German radar direction from the carrier. Do this and Japan has a better chance at Midway.

 

[GrauGeist]

We see this mention of atmospheric interference over the South Pacific, but that's a baseline that impacts everyone equally. If poor installation is what sets the Japanese apart from British and American aircraft radios, why do we give Japan a pass due to atmospheric interference?

It also depends of the radio design and construction as well as antenna design and placement.
Japanese radio technology of the 30's and 40's was lagging behind their western counterparts and this would prove to be an Achille's heel in their military operations (both Navy and Army).
This would also be the case with the Soviets, too.

So it's not nessecarily giving anyone a "free pass", but rather defining an issue - telecommunications was still a developing technology, much like Radar, which also happened to be a shortcoming with the IJN.

 

[PAT303]

The A6M2 with DT had a range of ~1200 miles at 250 mph TAS/200 IAS (max economic cruise) at 15,000 ft, with enough fuel for 20 minutes of combat (max power) and 30 minutes reserve (at best economic cruise). Under the same flight profile adding SSFT would decrease the range by ~200 miles. Adding SSFT and armour would have a relatively small effect on speed, while maneuverability and ROC which would drop to about Spitfire II level.

You could strip a Mk11 Spit of amour, radio equipment, bullet proof windscreen as well as any other equipment to the A6M's level and fit a 50+Gallon tank behind the pilots seat, 25G in the leading edge tanks, 96+Gallons in the main tank, without SS material they would hold an extra gallon or two plus a 50G drop tank underneath and like magic you will have all the attributes of the A6M such as long range, no communications, zero pilot protection, zero pilot comfort, a tendency of bursting into flames if hit and inbuild obsolescence.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It also depends of the radio design and construction as well as antenna design and placement.
Japanese radio technology of the 30's and 40's was lagging behind their western counterparts and this would prove to be an Achille's heel in their military operations (both Navy and Army).
This would also be the case with the Soviets, too.

So it's not nessecarily giving anyone a "free pass", but rather defining an issue - telecommunications was still a developing technology, much like Radar, which also happened to be a shortcoming with the IJN.

Agreed, but the point of this thread AIUI is to look at what tech sharing the Axis powered would have benefited from. That's why I brought up German aircraft radios for the Japanese.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You could strip a Mk11 Spit of amour, radio equipment, bullet proof windscreen as well as any other equipment to the A6M's level and fit a 50+Gallon tank behind the pilots seat, 25G in the leading edge tanks, 96+Gallons in the main tank, without SS material they would hold an extra gallon or two plus a 50G drop tank underneath and like magic you will have all the attributes of the A6M such as long range, no communications, zero pilot protection, zero pilot comfort, a tendency of bursting into flames if hit and inbuild obsolescence.

And remove half the armament. Wasn't the Mk.11 a later war design?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

I think you missed my point(s).

1. The A6M2 got its range and maneuverability because it was very well engineered.

2. The weight of the radio (50-60 lbs) was insignificant relative to speed, ROC, and maneuver. The reason it was sometimes left behind was due to reliability and repairs more than any other reason.

3. To improve the Spitfire I/II to the A6M2 level of maneuver and range (by your own statements above) you would have to make the Spitfire a worse aircraft, by removing armour and SSFT. Whereas to reduce the A6M2 to the Spitfire's maneuver and ROC level you would improve the A6M2 by adding armour and SSFT.

4. And the A6M2 would still have ~2x the range of the Spitfire, unless you add enough fuel tankage to the Spitfire - in which case you would lose most(all?) of the lightened Spitfire's maneuver and ROC improvement.

The maximum speed and dive speed are the only areas where the A6M2 would remain inferior to the Spitfire I/II (and yes I know that speed is important also).

 

[PAT303]

The A6M2 got its range and maneuverability because it was very well engineered.

No it wasn't, the only ''engineering'' it had was removing everything that made a fighter a warplane and use the saved weight to fill it full of fuel and fly it slowly at low altitude. If you flew the A6M on escort mission's to Berlin below 250mph/15,000ft you are going to leave a trail of burning wreckages across Europe.

 

[PAT303]

3. To improve the Spitfire I/II to the A6M2 level of maneuver and range (by your own statements above) you would have to make the Spitfire a worse aircraft, by removing armour and SSFT. Whereas to reduce the A6M2 to the Spitfire's maneuver and ROC level you would improve the A6M2 by adding armour and SSFT.

The A6M couldn't have SSFT, armour, more powerful guns or carry more ammunition because it sacrificed all of them for range and maneuverability, stripping a Spit to the same spec gets you everything the A6M has with higher speed across the board, but your pilots will mutiny, even Luftwaffe pilots demanded amour be fitted to their 109's after the battle of France regardless of the loss in performance.

 

[PAT303]

And remove half the armament. Wasn't the Mk.11 a later war design?

1940, it was in service before the A6M was

 

[ThomasP]

I think PAT303 meant the Mk II (two) not Mk 11 (eleven).

 

[Peter Gunn]

Not all countries are good at all things. I suspect that there was definitely a bit of colonial/western superiority thinking going on. Similarly, the same thinking was applied to the Soviet Union where nothing that country made could measure up to the standards of the west. Those kind of biases can be long lasting and underpinned the Allies reactions in 1941 - 1942 when there was general shock at the capabilities of the Japanese.

Japan had quite a few sound military designs that they made reality, tanks were not one of them.

 

[PAT303]

4. And The A6M2 would still have ~2x the range of the Spitfire, unless you add enough fuel tankage to the Spitfire - in which case you would lose most(all?) of the lightened Spitfire's maneuver and ROC improvement.

Have a look at the PR Spitfires performance, they had the armour radio's bullet proof windscreens etc etc taken off to lighten them and the weight saved was used to carry fuel, a MkI-II-III PR Spit with eight brownings fitted was equivalent in spec to the A6M and have all it's performance range agility and burning characteristics, the A6M wasn't the wonder weapon you are making it out to be. The Spitfire/Hurricane/Bf109 had full armour packages fitted and the early ones had field kits retro fitted, the A6M had a glass jaw.

 

[Admiral Beez]

1940, it was in service before the A6M was

Spitfire Mk. 11 (XI) entered service in 1943. Here's one below, does this look like a 1940 model to you?

Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia

I think PAT303 meant the Mk II (two) not Mk 11 (eleven).

Perhaps, IDK. We can only go by what they wrote.