Or against chain home in the BoB, the RAF over southern England was a very different animal than the RAAF over Darwin.
British escort fighter--what might it have been like?
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
But who's flying the A6M (or KI-43)?
Germans or Japanese?
Germans or Japanese?
Your not going to get RAF or Luftwaffe pilots into an A6M, they want armour, SS tanks, radio's, high speed handling.
It has no reason to get into a slow turning fight, up to the end of 1942 the 190 outclasses everything in the air below 20,000ft, even if it did get into a very slow turning fight with a Zero because the pilot was a fool it could do what they did to spitfires and faint rolling left before then reversing and rolling away to the right to get separation then reverse again and thunder back in guns blazing.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
you do realize that WWII in the ETO started without self sealing tank or armor, right?
And define "high-speed handling" in relation to early types involved.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And as an aside, if the Luftwaffe were operating the A6M (or KI-43), they would have their own radios installed.
The RFI caused by the unsheilded spark plug wires and poor two-way chassis grounding of the Japanese radio sets would have been rectified.
The RFI caused by the unsheilded spark plug wires and poor two-way chassis grounding of the Japanese radio sets would have been rectified.
I do yes, but actually going to war and shooting at one another showed just how important it was. The Air war over the channel was from ground level up too and over 30,000ft with speeds in excess of 450mph, both the Spitfire and 109 had handling problems that was never experienced during peacetime flying because the never reached those speeds requiring both to need modifications such metal or reprofiled ailerons and in the Spitfire's case a change to piano hinges to alleviate the problem, like the need for armor issue's that only presented themselves in actual war. The A6M couldn't get near those speeds with acceptable handling, flying one in 1940-1942 into RAF or Luftwaffe controlled airspace either side of the channel is a death sentence.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In WWI, the fighter pilots took to battle with machines that had nothing more than plywood for armor and no parachutes.
Not much changed in the interwar years (save for parachutes).
It wouldn't be until 1941 that armor and fuel cell protection became a constant.
When the USAAC fought the IJN at Pearl Harbor, none of the belligerent's aircraft were armored.
Warfare is a steep learning curve.
All Hurricanes and Spitfires were fitted with armor in the BoB, that's been proven in another thread on here, Luftwaffe pilots demanded all front line units have armored aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Post the thread.
Maybe because they weren't in a shooting war until then?.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Nope, not even close.
Does anyone know what it was called?, it was full of really good info, I know Mike Williams posted up a heap of archival information.
Found this for the Hurricane, all in service aircraft had armor from march 1940.
Was it this one?
ww2aircraft.net
Bullet proof windscreens by Oct 1939.
Armour on all new Hurricane production from 22 Feb 1940. Retrofitting to earlier aircraft was still going on in May but all materials were available. (Post #41 on that thread)
Armor Protection and Self-Sealing Tanks
When did armor protection and self-sealing tanks become standard on fighter aircraft? For instance, the Gloster Gladiator did not have either, if I'm not mistaken, nor did the Seversky P-35, and I'm not sure, but I don't think the Curtiss P-36 did, either, so it looks like it was immediately...
ww2aircraft.net
Bullet proof windscreens by Oct 1939.
Armour on all new Hurricane production from 22 Feb 1940. Retrofitting to earlier aircraft was still going on in May but all materials were available. (Post #41 on that thread)
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,283
- Jan 31, 2021
But how much did the German radio sets weigh as opposed to the Japanese? If it's more, that's going to degrade performance at least a little bit.
Was it this one?
Armor Protection and Self-Sealing Tanks
When did armor protection and self-sealing tanks become standard on fighter aircraft? For instance, the Gloster Gladiator did not have either, if I'm not mistaken, nor did the Seversky P-35, and I'm not sure, but I don't think the Curtiss P-36 did, either, so it looks like it was immediately...
Bullet proof windscreens by Oct 1939.
Armour on all new Hurricane production from 22 Feb 1940. Retrofitting to earlier aircraft was still going on in May but all materials were available. (Post #41 on that thread)
The one most over-rated plane of WWII
My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not...
ww2aircraft.net
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey BarnOwlLover & PAT303,
re the A6M in Europe.
As nuuumannn alluded to above, the question of the A6M2 in Europe has been gone over before in some detail in the thread:
"A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?"
The range of a standard A6M2 fitted with armour and SSFT (see this post "A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?") would still have been at least 2x the range of the Me109 or Fw190.
In addition to the thread linked above -
There is no practical engineering reason why various improvements could not be implemented, including more powerful engines, armour, SSFT, more efficient armament, etc. The only reason the Japanese did not implement more of these improvements during (or earlier in) the war was due to the pressures of war-time manufacturing. I think it is safe to assume that if the Germans had adopted the A6M airframe they would have introduced the needed improvements.
Your argument seems to assume that the A6M could not and/or would not have been improved by the Germans (or Italians if time allowed), re any high speed handling issues, armour, SSFT, etc. If the Me109 had not been improved beyond the D or E model (I choose these models because they are ~contemporary to the A6M2 in 1940-41) they would also have fallen behind in performance.
As mentioned in the thread linked above, armour and SSFT could have been added with minimal degradation in maneuver or range.
In addition:
If greater roll rate at high speeds (level or dive) had been required the ailerons could have been reduced in size and the linkage ratio changed.
If higher climb rate was the requirement then a more powerful engine could have been used, as was done later. Incidentally, the A6M2 had Service Ceiling (100 ft/min ROC) and Operational Ceiling (500 ft/min ROC) almost exactly midway between the Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I (both with CS props).
If higher speeds (level and dive) were the requirement then a more powerful engine along with aerodynamic refinements cold be implemented. Perhaps a lower drag cowling and/or a smaller wing. If we are talking about the air-war leading upto the BoB and for a year or so thereafter the Germans would not have been using the A6M from carriers anyway, so the very low speed handling would have been less important.
The only area where it would have been difficult to effect major improvements is in speed. From the aerodynamic aspect I do not think it would have been possible for the Germans to increase the speed beyond ~370 mph at altitude. At least not without a serious redesign of the airframe.
NOTE that I am assuming that the Germans are the ones using and improving the A6M in this What-If. For the Japanese to be flying the A6M in Europe (as opposed to flying the Me109 pr Fw190) it would mean that they could not be fighting a war in the Pacific, as they would not have the resources to do both. Maybe a couple of Japanese volunteer squadrons?
re the A6M in Europe.
As nuuumannn alluded to above, the question of the A6M2 in Europe has been gone over before in some detail in the thread:
"A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?"
The range of a standard A6M2 fitted with armour and SSFT (see this post "A6M - Germany Japan Technology Exchange Missed Opportunity?") would still have been at least 2x the range of the Me109 or Fw190.
In addition to the thread linked above -
There is no practical engineering reason why various improvements could not be implemented, including more powerful engines, armour, SSFT, more efficient armament, etc. The only reason the Japanese did not implement more of these improvements during (or earlier in) the war was due to the pressures of war-time manufacturing. I think it is safe to assume that if the Germans had adopted the A6M airframe they would have introduced the needed improvements.
Your argument seems to assume that the A6M could not and/or would not have been improved by the Germans (or Italians if time allowed), re any high speed handling issues, armour, SSFT, etc. If the Me109 had not been improved beyond the D or E model (I choose these models because they are ~contemporary to the A6M2 in 1940-41) they would also have fallen behind in performance.
As mentioned in the thread linked above, armour and SSFT could have been added with minimal degradation in maneuver or range.
In addition:
If greater roll rate at high speeds (level or dive) had been required the ailerons could have been reduced in size and the linkage ratio changed.
If higher climb rate was the requirement then a more powerful engine could have been used, as was done later. Incidentally, the A6M2 had Service Ceiling (100 ft/min ROC) and Operational Ceiling (500 ft/min ROC) almost exactly midway between the Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I (both with CS props).
If higher speeds (level and dive) were the requirement then a more powerful engine along with aerodynamic refinements cold be implemented. Perhaps a lower drag cowling and/or a smaller wing. If we are talking about the air-war leading upto the BoB and for a year or so thereafter the Germans would not have been using the A6M from carriers anyway, so the very low speed handling would have been less important.
The only area where it would have been difficult to effect major improvements is in speed. From the aerodynamic aspect I do not think it would have been possible for the Germans to increase the speed beyond ~370 mph at altitude. At least not without a serious redesign of the airframe.
NOTE that I am assuming that the Germans are the ones using and improving the A6M in this What-If. For the Japanese to be flying the A6M in Europe (as opposed to flying the Me109 pr Fw190) it would mean that they could not be fighting a war in the Pacific, as they would not have the resources to do both. Maybe a couple of Japanese volunteer squadrons?
I'd suggest going with wood as much as possible, with leading-edge radiators. Should've looked like a baby Tempest 1.
Shortround6
Major General
The thing is that a "European Improved Zero" wouldn't quite be Zero anymore.
109s got new engines from 1938-39 and by 1941 they were getting DB 601N engines (112 by Jan 22nd 1941)
The Spitfire II was showing up in July of 1940 (first squadron deliveries) and Merlin XII was noted as just about making up for the increased weight and drag of all the improvements.
Including the IFF aerials.
The Actual Zeros went into action on Aug 19th 1940 in China. They were successful beyond all expectations against the Chinese but these were the A6M2 model 11 and didn't have the small folding wing tip and a few other differences.
There are 3 things that gave the Zero it's range. They were not magic( mostley)
1. a whacking big drop tank.
a. internal fuel was about 140-141 US gallons. (533 liters....117imp gal)
b. Drop tank was 87 US gal. (330 liters.........87 imp gal)
2. Low cruise speed. Many planes could do decent cruise at low speed.
3.The Sakae engine would run at low speed at an astonishing low fuel consumption (180kts needed 16.4 US gal an hour but 190 kts needed 24 gal hour)
Any talk about improving the Zero by swapping engines would have to take this into account.
The "Japanese Improved Zero" (the A6M2 31) with it's two speed supercharger lost the ability to cruise at low throttle settings, it also lost about 14 gallons of fuel from the internal fuel.
the A6M5 52 gained about 500lbs in weight (about 10%)
Protection for the Zero started with the 371st A6M5 when CO2 system was fitted to the wing fuel tanks.
The A6M5b got bullet proof windscreen (April 1944)
The A6M5c got armor behind the pilot.
You have self sealing which plugs leaks (bullet holes) and not only helps prevent fires but can help the plane get home without running out of gas
You also have the technique of filling the fuel tank/s with inert gas (cooled exhaust gas or nitrogen tank or CO2) to prevent fires in the tank. doesn't do much for fuel leaking into the wing or fuselage structure. This is sometimes referred to as "protected fuel tanks" which can sometimes refer to thicker wing skinning or thin aluminum plates to reduce punctures.
But it is a lot lighter than self sealing which could be up to 1/2lb of sq ft of sealing material.
And armor did degrade maneuver and climb. The Spit added 93lbs (?) of protection, later ones got more.
Spitfire was also an interesting case, The upper fuel tank never (?) got self sealing.
I believe the "upper fuel tank cowling panel" was 4mm dialuminium (?). which offered protection from mg bullets coming in from an angle. You had the foreword armor, you had the self sealing tank below and you had the pilots armor (and the pilot ) protecting the tank from the rear.
The British did not want to take the reduction in fuel capacity that the self sealing tank would require and/or did not want to take the time/effort to locate the fuel somewhere else.
109s got new engines from 1938-39 and by 1941 they were getting DB 601N engines (112 by Jan 22nd 1941)
The Spitfire II was showing up in July of 1940 (first squadron deliveries) and Merlin XII was noted as just about making up for the increased weight and drag of all the improvements.
Including the IFF aerials.
The Actual Zeros went into action on Aug 19th 1940 in China. They were successful beyond all expectations against the Chinese but these were the A6M2 model 11 and didn't have the small folding wing tip and a few other differences.
There are 3 things that gave the Zero it's range. They were not magic( mostley)
1. a whacking big drop tank.
a. internal fuel was about 140-141 US gallons. (533 liters....117imp gal)
b. Drop tank was 87 US gal. (330 liters.........87 imp gal)
2. Low cruise speed. Many planes could do decent cruise at low speed.
3.The Sakae engine would run at low speed at an astonishing low fuel consumption (180kts needed 16.4 US gal an hour but 190 kts needed 24 gal hour)
Any talk about improving the Zero by swapping engines would have to take this into account.
The "Japanese Improved Zero" (the A6M2 31) with it's two speed supercharger lost the ability to cruise at low throttle settings, it also lost about 14 gallons of fuel from the internal fuel.
the A6M5 52 gained about 500lbs in weight (about 10%)
Protection for the Zero started with the 371st A6M5 when CO2 system was fitted to the wing fuel tanks.
The A6M5b got bullet proof windscreen (April 1944)
The A6M5c got armor behind the pilot.
This is not quite true. Not all SSFTs were created equal. In fact there are often two different things going on.
You have self sealing which plugs leaks (bullet holes) and not only helps prevent fires but can help the plane get home without running out of gas
You also have the technique of filling the fuel tank/s with inert gas (cooled exhaust gas or nitrogen tank or CO2) to prevent fires in the tank. doesn't do much for fuel leaking into the wing or fuselage structure. This is sometimes referred to as "protected fuel tanks" which can sometimes refer to thicker wing skinning or thin aluminum plates to reduce punctures.
But it is a lot lighter than self sealing which could be up to 1/2lb of sq ft of sealing material.
And armor did degrade maneuver and climb. The Spit added 93lbs (?) of protection, later ones got more.
Spitfire was also an interesting case, The upper fuel tank never (?) got self sealing.
I believe the "upper fuel tank cowling panel" was 4mm dialuminium (?). which offered protection from mg bullets coming in from an angle. You had the foreword armor, you had the self sealing tank below and you had the pilots armor (and the pilot ) protecting the tank from the rear.
The British did not want to take the reduction in fuel capacity that the self sealing tank would require and/or did not want to take the time/effort to locate the fuel somewhere else.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
