How bad would a Euro-spec A6M Zero be?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bothe Spit MkII and higher dash Emils got more powerful engines but their performance didn't improve over the earlier models, it just compensated for the extra weight and drag of equipment warplanes required that was learned from actual combat experience.

'Twas ever thus.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

If we are going to focus on what it could do in historical reality, then this discussion is somewhat pointless. In reality, if we transplant the actual Zero to Europe (early-war), it would have the same disadvantages it had in the PTO, plus the new disadvantage of lower speed relative to the Spitfire, Bf109, and Fw190.

The ability to add armour and SSFT to the A6M2 has been pointed out above, eliminating that advantage of the Spitfire and Bf109, for an additional .9 lb/ft2 of wing loading, raising the wing loading to about that of the A6M3. Even if we add another 100 lbs for strengthening of various load bearing structure members, it will only add than another .4 lb/ft2 to the wing loading. So the modified A6M2 would have a wing loading of 23.55 lb/ft2, the Spit Mk V had a wing loading of 26.5/27.4/29.0 lbs/ft2 for the A/B/C models, and the Bf109F had a wing loading of ~35 lb/ft2. You would have to add 714 lbs more to the weight of the already modified A6M2 to raise the wing loading to the level of the Spit VA, and about 2770 lbs to get it to the wing loading of the Bf109F.

The speed difference between the A6M and the Spitfire and Bf109 has been addressed several times, and there does not appear to be any reasonable way to get the A6M above about 350 mph, at least not using Japanese engines of the early-war period.

Armament would not make too big a difference I think, particularly once it had the higher MV belt-fed 20mm (100 rpg), since 1-2x 20mm and a couple of rifle caliber MGs are more than capable of taking down a fighter. (The Spitfire II/VA and B had either 8x .303 cal MG or 2x 20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 4x .303 cal, then received 120-round belt-fed mods. The Bf109Es had either 1 or 2x20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 2x7.92mm. The Bf109F had 1x15mm or 20mm and 2x 7.92mm. The Fw190 is another story.)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Even if we add another 100 lbs for strengthening of various load bearing structure members, it will only add than another .4 lb/ft2 to the wing loading.

I think you're looking at more than 100 lbs.

Armament would not make too big a difference I think, particularly once it had the higher MV belt-fed 20mm (100 rpg), since 1-2x 20mm and a couple of rifle caliber MGs are more than capable of taking down a fighter. (The Spitfire II/VA and B had either 8x .303 cal MG or 2x 20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 4x .303 cal, then received 120-round belt-fed mods. The Bf109Es had either 1 or 2x20mm (60-round drum-fed) and 2x7.92mm. The Bf109F had 1x15mm or 20mm and 2x 7.92mm. The Fw190 is another story.)

Well let's lock in what model we're talking about. Spitfire MK I or MK II, BF109E, A6M2 with the Mk 3 cannon? I think the Zero had good armament for the Pacific but in Europe it could use at least 2 more MGs (more weight from the guns, ammo and structural modifications required). And no additional HP?

 

[ThomasP]

It might take more than 100 lbs, but I do not think much more. 1 of the fuel tanks is located in fuselage, and the other 2 are located right next to the fuselage, just inboard of the landing gear in the strongest part of the wings. The armour is of course in the fuselage in this case. The locations should make it relatively easy to reinforce what needs to be reinforced with out adding much weight.

I agree, the lack of a more powerful engine seriously limits what can be done to upgrade the Zero.

 

[PAT303]

I agree, the lack of a more powerful engine seriously limits what can be done to upgrade the Zero.

And that's why I think it is a very overrated plane, the Spitfire Bf109 and A6M were all compromised in their designs because they had to make do with the engine HP available at the time but unlike both the Spit and 109 the Zero couldn't grow as engines got more powerful, as an example the Spit got metal control surfaces as it neared and then broke 400mph, American aircraft went further and got boosted controls. The A6M was a design dead end compared to European and mid war American aircraft.

 

[PAT303]

The ability to add armour and SSFT to the A6M2 has been pointed out above, eliminating that advantage of the Spitfire and Bf109

The FF/M and Hispano AP ammunition could defeat the pilot armor on either sides aircraft, the A6M2 had neither pilot armor and the pilots seat even had 40mm approx sized holes punched into it to make it lighter giving less protection.

couple of rifle caliber MGs are more than capable of taking down a fighter

If 8 MG's with reliable effective incendiary and AP ammunition is considered lightly armed after 1940 you are not going to get many takers for only 2.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

The A6M2 was never fitted with only 2x rifle caliber MGs. It entered service with 2x 7.7mm MG and 2x 20mm cannon. The Type 99 Mk I 20mm were approximately equivalent to German 20mm MG/FF (the Japanese 20mm was also based on the Oerlikon FF design).

Are you thinking of the armament on the Ki-43 'Oscar'? The Ki-43 started out with 2x 7.7mm MG and eventually graduated to 2x 12.7mm MG in its mid-war production models.

 

[PAT303]

The A6M2 was never fitted with only 2x rifle caliber MGs.

I was replying to your post stating 2 MG's are more than capable of downing a fighter, no they weren't that's why after 1940 every country that still fitted LMG's classed them as secondary armament.

The Type 99 Mk I 20mm were approximately equivalent to German 20mm MG/FF (the Japanese 20mm was also based on the Oerlikon FF design).

The casing was reduced in length from 100mm down to 80mm with a corresponding lowering of power to save weight and because the A6M's wing structure could not handle the larger case's recoil.

 

[PAT303]

Are you thinking of the armament on the Ki-43 'Oscar'? The Ki-43 started out with 2x 7.7mm MG and eventually graduated to 2x 12.7mm MG in its mid-war production models.

The Ki 43 was even more maneuverable than the A6M from reports but was nothing more than a acrobatic trainer wearing a couple of guns

 

[ThomasP]

?? I am pretty sure that I never said that 2 MGs are more than capable of downing a fighter. If I did it was a typo, but I looked over my posts and am not seeing it.??

 

[tomo pauk]

The casing was reduced in length from 100mm down to 80mm with a corresponding lowering of power to save weight and because the A6M's wing structure could not handle the larger case's recoil.

That never happened, and A6M's wing was able to withstand the larger's case recoil.
The Type 99-1 was as powerful as the Oerlikon FFF (case length 72mm for both), and the Type 99-2 was as powerful as the Oerlikon FFL (case length for the 99-2 was 101mm, for the FFL it was 100mm); both Japanese cannons were Oerlikons made under licence. From 1943 on, the Type 99-2 was installed on the Zeros.
FWIW, the Oerlikon API family tree: picture

 

[ThomasP]

The German and Japanese FF models were both license produced copies of the Oerlikon FF, with only minor detail modifications.

The German 20mm MG/FF had a MV of 1920-2300 ft/sec depending on the round with a ROF of 520-540 rpm. The early-war German rounds had MVs 1920-1970 ft/sec depending on whether it was the round was AP or HE. The 2300 ft/sec was for the lighter FFM high capacity HE round.

The Japanese 20mm Type 99 Mk I had a MV of 1970 ft/sec with the standard round and a ROF of 520-540 rpm. The Japanese standard HE round weighed close to the same as the German standard HE round.

The change from the 20x80RB (German) case to the shorter 20x72RB (Japanese) case was for reliability of feed, not because the wing structure could not handle the recoil.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey tomo pauk,

My source for the info on the Japanese case length is the book "Japanese Aircraft Equipment 1940-45" (Wiki also) but I do not know how accurate they are.

 

[PAT303]

That never happened, and A6M's wing was able to withstand the larger's case recoil.

Everything I have read about the A6M centered around weight savings and the structural strength of the plane which considering it ended the war with basically the same guns it started with makes sense.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And what envelope is that, the one were it's even slower than the Hurricane so it's bounced easier?

If the Zero is progressively uncontrollable over 300 mph, its envelope is slower than a Hurricane. With armour, ssft and a radio the Zero will better survive being bounced, which can happen to any fighter with an enemy diving from behind. The Hurricane is a good aircraft, not an term of disparagement.

 

[tomo pauk]

Everything I have read about the A6M centered around weight savings and the structural strength of the plane which considering it ended the war with basically the same guns it started with makes sense.

This is where you get it wrong: it haven't ended the war with 'basically the same guns it started [with]'.
The Type 99-2 was more powerful, heavier and bigger than the 99-1. It fired more powerful ammunition, it carried much more rounds. The 13mm HMGs installed were not the 7.7mm guns.

 

[Glider]

The A6M2 had roughly the same firepower as the 109E with 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG. This was considered by most to be more effective than the 8 x LMG. Granted the Japanese didn't have the mine round but there was nothing really to complain about.

True over 300 mph the Zero had trouble maintaining its agility as the controls started to seize up, but the 109 had a similar problem although not quite as bad, a factor that is often forgotten. That said in combat aircraft tend to lose speed and the Hurricane in particular wouldn't have started with much more than 300mph so in the early days this problem is probably exaggerated as combat over 300mph would be rare.

Clearly the Zero had a much greater range than the RAF and German fighters which gives it considerable strategic advantages, that no other air force had and shouldn't be forgotten.

Much is being made that the Zero lacked the ability to develop., but neither did the early 109. The Me109F was a very different aircraft to the Me109E, different wings, fuselage, engine, weapons, in effect it was a redesign. Again a similar comment applies to the Hurricane which went forward with limited changes and wasn't really updated with more than the minimum of change.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you look at the Bf109E and compare it to say the Bf109K4 you're looking at an almost entirely different aircraft. The Germans continued to refine and improve the design. Look at the Bf109E, top speed, just under 350 mph and in several short years the K4 was flown at over 440 mph. Powerplant went from 1,000 HP to over 1,700 HP.

The Zero? Improvements were made but compare the A6M2 to the A6M8 and you're not getting much more "bang for the buck." Top speed, just over 330 MPH for for the A6M2, about 360 MPH for the A6M8 (don't hold me to exact numbers, I'm going off of memory). Although the A6M8 offered a 1,500 HP engine, some armor protection and improved guns, I believe it weighed about 700 pounds more than the A6M2 (see my earlier post #25). I don't know what the range was but I'm sure it was less than the A6M2.

In essence I think the "Euro-spec" Zero can be found inn the A6M8, but it came 5 years late.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In essence I think the "Euro-spec" Zero can be found inn the A6M8, but it came 5 years late.

If they could get the A6M8 into play by early 1942 how does it compare against the best possible Spitfires over Darwin.

 

[Shortround6]

Clearly the Zero had a much greater range than the RAF and German fighters which gives it considerable strategic advantages, that no other air force had and shouldn't be forgotten.

True but we seem to be dealing with a time shift (insert sci-fi term).

A 1940 Zero in Europe in 1940 would be in serious trouble.
An Aug 1942 Zero (A6M3) in Aug of 1940 would have some nice advantages.
An Aug 1942 Zero in Europe in Aug of 1942 is back to being in serious trouble.
A6M3 vs Spitfire MK IX? Mustang I? Bf 109G?
The 1940 Zero had a number of problems with handling and strength which were addressed as production went on during late 1940 and1941.
The 327th A6M2 built (Sept 1941) was the one that finally incorporated all the desired changes, although many earlier ones were refitted or fitted with alternative solutions that cost a bit of speed.
Unmodified planes were limited to 250 kts and 5 Gs for a pull out from a dive. Restrictions that would severely handicap such a Zero in Europe in 1940/early 1941.

This is quite apart from any degradation in performance fitting armor or protected tanks might impose.

And please remember that the A6M2 used and engine with a single speed supercharger that was supposed to give 950hp at 13,780ft.

The A6M3 got the engine that gave 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft. While top speed didn't change much, where top speed occurred did. A6M3's ability to fight at over 20,000ft was much enhanced.