A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hey PAT303,

1. I never said that the A6M2 was a wonder weapon.

2. The first part of your last post ". . . 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 . . ." says what I said above, ie in order to match the A6M2's maneuverability and range you would have to make the Spitfire I/II worse (ie remove the armour and SSFT) while adding tankage in order to get the range. But the weight of the added tankage and fuel would reduce the maneuverability below the A6M2. All this assumes the same basic mission profile, ie cruise to target at 250 mph TAS at 15,000 ft (or higher altitude) 20 min combat and 30 min reserve. In reality, the speeds would often be less for at least half the distance due to having to fly formation with the bombers - if it was an escort mission.

Incidentally, the A6M2 carried 2x 7.7mm (500rpg belt fed) MG and 2x 20mm cannon (60rpg drum fed) from the start of production. For the next generation (the A6M3) the 20mms had had a higher MV and 100rpg (belt fed). Some of the last generation (the A6M5) had the 3x 13mm and 2x 20mm (100 rpg belt fed), plus pilot armour. (I am not sure if the A6M was ever fitted with bullet resistant glass.)
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
Torpedos.
Click to expand...
Very true, especially in the early year.

What do we think of Japanese submarines? As much as we think the Germans led the innovation and tech on submarines, their early war boats were very cramp and rather short ranged. The Type VII U-Boat had a surface displacement of 769 tonnes. Early war Japanese subs were twice this size, Kaidai-type submarine - Wikipedia Yes the Germans need hundreds, not dozens of submarines, so the Japanese small batch programs won't work, but perhaps there are some ideas to share on range and habitability. Do the Italians have any submarine tech or ideas to share?
 

I know the Japanese could show the Germans a thing or two about submarine range, provided the latter were willing to build big boats that could carry that much fuel and provisioning. Whether the Germans would be very interested or not, I couldn't say.

I know little about Italian subs except that in able hands, they were as dangerous as U-boats, and that they operated with some success in the Battle of the Atlantic.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I know little about Italian subs except that in able hands, they were as dangerous as U-boats
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it's noteworthy that midget subs aside, the Axis biggest kills in the MTO were by German U-Boats, not Italian submarines. A quick look at twenty-one U-Boats operating in the MTO racks up an impressive kill list of two carriers, a battleship, four cruisers and eighteen DD/DEs. Not bad considering the Germans were focused on the Battle of the Atlantic. Perhaps the Italian submarines were more focused on sinking the British merchant ships.

U-73, sunk aircraft carrier HMS Eagle
U-77, sunk destroyers HMS Kimberley and HMS Grove
U-81, sunk aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and troopship (with nearly 2,000 aboard) SS Yoma
U-133, sunk destroyer HMS Gurkha
U-205, sunk cruiser HMS Hermione
U-223, sunk destroyer HMS Laforey
U-331, sunk battleship HMS Barham
U-371, sunk destroyer USS Bristol and damaged destroyer-escorts USS Menges and FFL Sénégalais
U-407, damaged cruisers HMS Newfoundland and HMS Birmingham
U-410, sunk cruiser HMS Penelope
U-431, sunk destroyers HNMS Isaac Sweers and HMS Martin
U-443, sunk destroyer HMS Blean
U-453, damaged/total loss of destroyer HMS Quail
U-557, sunk cruiser HMS Galatea
U-565, sunk cruiser HMS Naiad and destroyer HMS Partridge
U-593, sunk destroyers HMS Tynedale and HMS Holcombe
U-602, sunk destroyer HMS Porcupine
U-616, sunk destroyer USS Buck
U-617, sunk destroyer HMS Puckeridge
U-652, sunk destroyers HMS Heythrop and HMS Jaguar
U-967, sunk destroyer-escort USS Fechteler

Of course this is an aviation forum, so I won't continue further on submarine warfare.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
What about the Japanese Army Air Force? What could they use from either Germany or Italy? For starters the IJAF has no dive bomber, so the Stuka seems a good start. Japanese Forces - Stuka in Japan And the German jet engine program.
Click to expand...
The IJA had the KI-51, which was used successfully in the CBI.
They never did seem compelled to develop a follow-on to the type as it became obsolete in the PTO, though.
 
In short, pretty high opinion (for me). I think the IJN had some excellent submarines, they just didn't use them properly, prioritizing warships over the un honorable merchantmen. Had they deployed them as commerce raiders I can only speculate how well they would have done in the target rich environment of the U.S. supply line from California to the SW and Central Pacific.

Both U.S and U.K. submarines were, in my opinion, quite superior to the Type VII U-Boat that the Germans deployed for most of the war. It doesn't stack up as overly impressive to a Gato or a Tench.

Even their Type XXI wasn't all it was cracked up to be, after stripping away the propaganda and hype, there were some serious flaws with that design too.
 
Given their extended long range, in advance of Dec 7th the IJN should have placed large fleet subs around Pearl Harbour, San Diego, CA and Puget Sound, WA.
 


The German Type IX had some real problems also. Storing extra torpedoes under the deck casing was pretty slick in 1939, not such a good idea in 1943. The stronger air patrols got and/or the worse weather the boats operated in the more the under deck casing torpedo storage became so much dead weight.

The Japanese subs did have a few problems, the surface performance was good but under water performance wasn't so good and they took longer to dive and were not very maneuverable under water. Most of them could only fire 6 torpedoes at a time.
 
The IJN did certainly use subs to sink merchant vessels.

However issues abound.

1, Fleet submarines. IJN used submarines against enemy naval vessels. Either as scouts or attack. They were part of the Decisive Battle doctrine again either as scouts or to shoot a few ships down. IJN subs did gain some noticable kills.

2, Naval officers who were sent into the sub service were the no hopers lower rung types. Probably the sewage barges had better career prospects. So you're not sending the A-team to begin with.

3, the Pacific is chuffing huuuuge so more finding a haystack and then finding a needle.

4, Allies had a distinct tech advantage over the IJN subs.

5, use of subs as transports rather than offensive action.

6, Allied code breaking.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Given their extended long range, in advance of Dec 7th the IJN should have placed large fleet subs around Pearl Harbour, San Diego, CA and Puget Sound, WA.
Click to expand...

Japanese did place 27 submarines around the Hawaiian Islands in Dec of 1941.

Japanese had about 42 large submarines in Dec of 1941.
Most of the large subs in Dec of 1941 had ranges of 10-14,000miles although by running slower range could be extended, food and fresh water might be a problem.

8 or more had 20-24,000 mile range.
 

Fair enough, but one last thought: perhaps the Italians sent their best skippers into the Atlantic?
 
Are you giving them a pass? This atmospheric condition was in the area of Guadacanal, Rabaul etc.
 
Pat, do you understand the sequence of development of fighter aircraft in the mid to late 1930's? Self sealing fuel tanks, and pilot armor were not part of the design, including German, English and American aircraft.
 
sotaro said:
Pat, do you understand the sequence of development of fighter aircraft in the mid to late 1930's? Self sealing fuel tanks, and pilot armor were not part of the design, including German, English and American aircraft.
Click to expand...

Self sealing fuel tanks and armor were not part of the design in 1930's aircraft because they weren't shooting at each other in the 1930's, as soon as the 1940's came around and they did indeed start shooting at each other every country, England Germany and America soon recognised that the most valuable part of an aircraft was the Pilot and they fitted SSFT and armor to fighters on the production line and field kitted the ones already in service. Read up about the changes made to the Hurricane Spitfire and Bf109 as a direct result of combat experience gained during the battle for France.
 
There was an entire war in the 1930's in the European continent that involved Germany and the USSR. The Luftwaffe exited that war without the above mentioned pilot protections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Air cooled inline engines - a missed opportunity?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Z
Germany goes for centrifugal flow turbojet engines?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
bf109xxl
Upper Limits of Imperial Japanese Aerospace Technology
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
JoblinTheGoblin
A
If Weimar Republic succeeds, is Britain unprepared to face Japan?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Radial engines more favored in Germany, 1935-45?
6 7 8
Replies
146
Views
13K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register