The thing is that long range of the Zero and Oscar were not anywhere near as useful in NW Europe or Eastern Europe or the Med.
Not useless but not as useful.
And the change in speeds needed to transit combat areas often (but not always) considerably reduced the difference in the "book' figures.
I see 1200 mile range for A6M5 at 250 mph TAS. That looks pretty good to me. Almost 2000 miles at lower speed.
I know, you know, most other people here know (maybe with one exception I can think of) that planes fly further at lower speeds, usually. What you have asserted but not established is this notion that A6M would have to somehow fly much slower than any other fighters would. I.e. that the ratios are somehow different.
In other words, the basic benchmarks of range are roughly the same. Bf 109 (and most European or Russian fighters) about 400-500 miles. A6M2 about 1100 miles (at about 200 mph). A6M3 about 900 miles, A6M5 about 1200 at 250 mph or up to 2000 miles at lower speeds.
These ranges go down somewhat as flying speeds go up. But I don't believe that typical cruise speeds were vastly higher in the Med or Russian Front than they were in the Pacific or China. Or that they would go down considerably more for A6M than they would for Bf 109, MC 202, Yak 1, Spitfire V, Hurricane II, etc. In every case, the flight speed is often set by the bombers, who are in almost every case in 1942 are going to be flying at a maxiumo of around 200-250 mph, or considerably less.
In fact, I think it's a ridiculous and spurious claim. To imply that the Bf 109 had anywhere near the range of an A6M is naive if you are clueless, and just disingenuous if you actually know any of the data.
It is absurd to imply that the range figures for the A6M are only based on flying around at 140 knots. Thomas P has posted very clear data proving that it was not, in fact at those lower speeds the A6M range is vastly longer, up to 4000km!
Now of course, there were places where that kind of ultra long range at low speed over-water could have been very helpful for the Axis, North Atlantic, Bay of Biscay I'm looking at you. That would have been a BIG problem for the Allies.
But I'm not focusing on that so far. That is why I intentionally quoted the lower range figures for the A6M. I.e. the range at higher speeds.
A6M2 in early 1942 vs Yak Is?
Yak is faster, turns pretty good but not good enough and the A6M2s climb is not enough different to make the difference that the A6M2 enjoyed against the P-39s and P-40s.
I really like that match up.
A6M vs Yak1 in 1942 is a good match. A6M has better climb (and much steeper climbing angle, enough to do very tight loops), much better turn, is much more heavily armed, has of course, vastly better range, and it's worth noting, Yak (and LaGG 3, and La 5) had problems diving at high speeds. So a split-S escape isn't likely to happen. They will have to duke it out or die. I put my my money on the A6M more times than not.
Against that, Yak-1 has slightly better speed (maybe 10-30 mph depending on how 'clean', less if the pilot took the canopy off). He has a little bit of pilot armor and SS tanks. Maybe a slightly better gun (but one 20mm vs two for the A6M) and more cannon ammunition in the case of the A6M2. It is noteworthy that even the A6M2 carried 500 rounds per gun for their 7.7mm machine guns so even when they run out of cannon ammunition they can still fight, especially against a small plane like a Yak 1.
And so on through the better Soviet and German fighters.
Agreed! Though the German fighters probably had a better chance. I don't think any fighters in this period, except the faster 109G variants and maybe Fw 190, really have any significant advantage over A6M2 or A6M3.
Yes you can find things like the I-24 but they were fading out in 1942.
The Japanese fighters are going to suffer from higher combat attrition. Not a lot but the lack of self sealing tanks is not just going down flames but not making back to base because the fuel leaked out from 1-2 hits that didn't set fire to the tanks. Plus the lack of even basic seatback protection.
You are trying to use 1940 fighters in 1942 and just because some forces were using 1940 aircraft in 1942 (MC 200) doesn't mean it is a good idea.
A6M3 isn't a 1940 fighter. Two speed supercharger unlike any Soviet fighters at that time.
The Japanese aircraft also didn't have a lot of ammo for their guns. Unlike the pacific your were more likely to get into a 2nd engagement on long mission.
Neither did most Soviet fighters
At times on eastern front (and other places more rarely) both sides were flying 3-4 times a day. They didn't have to fly for hours to get into a fight.
They
couldn't fly for hours to get into a fight.
Using long range penetration fighters without protection and with limited ammo doesn't really bring that much to the table.
A few rear area raids are not going to end things. Destroying more enemy equipment/assets than they can afford to loose while loosing fewer assets of your own than you can replace (allowing for growth) is what wins long wars.
See early Japanese victories in the Pacific on this.