Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?
*standard operating procedure
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was done that way by the navy to keep the decks clear for the rearming of CAP fighters, as stated in Shattered Sword.
Not according to Wikipedia.
That's where the info is.In other words: you don't know, and wan't to send me into wild goose chase instead.
That's where the info is.
Heinkel He 112 - WikipediaIncluding the info about He 112's fuel tankage? If so, please quote it, or concede the point.
That extra 100 miles is the difference between getting to London and back or ditching in the English Channel.
That extra 100 miles is the difference between getting to London and back or ditching in the English Channel.
Obviously you need the He 112B with a DB601A. As for manoeuvrability, wiki says that they were manoeuvrable, but complex to maintain.Do you mean with the Jumo 210?
That extra 100 miles would give the RAF a better chance of shooting you down. Do you want to take on a 360 mph fighter in an aircraft giving away 50 mph and one that the Germans themselves considered lacked manoeuvrability.
You know and I know (and so does most everyone here) that that all of the above is true. With all due respect, my friend, and leaving ignorant internet warriors aside, even the world's best carrier fighter of '40-'42, which the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change. A fatal flaw is not an immutable permanent feature of a combat aircraft, but the result of a weakness in its design being exploited by the enemy to create unacceptable attrition. It only becomes a fatal flaw when circumstances allow that weakness to be exploited. A superb machine, I'd love to have an A6M to start my (dream) personal collection (as long as no one is shooting at me!).These are largely inaccurate assessments and are almost predominantly made by Americans and have been generated from myths perpetuated since the end of the war. They completely belie the fact that the Zero was an outstanding design, full of modern innovations in 1939 and between then and 1942 was undoubtedly one of the world's best fighters in service.
Good question. Has anybody seen any info on this? I would venture to guess that prior to 12/7/41 no Japanese carrier had ever faced a credible airborne threat, but had launched numerous strikes ashore. It's hard to imagine all that available real estate being ignored.Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?
Obviously you need the He 112B with a DB601A. As for manoeuvrability, wiki says that they were manoeuvrable, but complex to maintain.
On a Db600a but the Db601 had fuel injection so you should recover that loss.Which loses you 200 Km of range.
A ww2 fighter plane is going to get shot at. It needs to be able to take what it can dish out.the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change.
On a Db600a but the Db601 had fuel injection so you should recover that loss.
".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."
A couple of pointsIt has everything to do the Zero's flaws, IJN carrier doctrine evolved around many of the inadequacies of their equipment or lack there off, the Zero, re it's light armament was one of them and that directly lead, combined with other problems such as poor damage control to the carriers being lost, that's a fatal flaw. The Japanese lost experienced pilots very early on in the war because their aircraft in general had a low survival rate after being hit, the air forces of all the other fighting nations put great emphasis on pilot survival even to the detriment of the aircraft's performance, the Zero gained it's agility by not being protected or protecting it's pilot, that's a fatal flaw. As to your comment on the Zero not catching fire easily, there's hours of gun camera footage/film of Japanese planes literally bursting into flames when hit.