Admiral Beez
Major
Thanks. I thought the earlier A6M variant available by October 1940 carried a smaller amount of cannon and mg ammo. Now I know better.
March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
The Zeros carried the same armament until the A6M3.
The early A6M3 carried 100 rounds per gun but used the short barreled cannon.
The later A6M3 got the long barreled cannon.
The early A6M3 carried 100 rounds per gun but used the short barreled cannon.
The later A6M3 got the long barreled cannon.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Which would be Type 99-1 cannons, with 60 round drums, correct?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, I wasn't saying they'd rule the skies.
Shortround6
Major General
Yes.
If the A6M1 had guns (I don't know one way or the other)they would be the same as the A6M2 model 11 and the A6M2 model 21.
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
I do not have the slightest idea. But when some years ago I came across references to his work, the point seem to have been that the claims to loss ratio of the Bf 110, compared to the Bf 109, was slightly in the favour of the first. Thus, unless 110's were more prone to overclaiming than 109's, the latter seem to, on average, not to have done better. Supposing the tendency to overclaim was comparable, and that he calibrated them in the same manner, they do question the 'fact' that the 110 was simply terrible in the bob, or at least not more terrible than the 109.
In what I read comparizon of claims to loss rate of British fighters were not considered. To me it seems this would present for more methodological problems.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Not available in the time specified.
Also, it had too much nose armour, and EXCESSIVE firepower with the wing mounted guns
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
None were operational until '41, so it (fortunately) misses the March - October '40 timeline.
Last edited:
This post Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB on TOCH has similar numbers from Bergström's book published in 2006 in Swedish.
However, here is implied that these are the actual victories rather than claims, as in the attachment from the later English language book provided by John Vasco.
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,861
- Feb 27, 2020
The type 5 had two MG (one each wing) and type 10 four (two in the no se and one each wing). IIRC, type 17 change the wing MG for 20mm cannons.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!
Two words: Stephen King.
Shortround6
Major General
The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.
Several versions had 20mm cannon setting up a struggle between heavy armament and degraded performance.
Combine that with not enough production capacity to go around there were several cannon armed versions interspersed with machine gun armed versions.
As they increased the engine power they tried to bring the 20mm gun versions back.
For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .
They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl
But that with such a load was not good, even with an 1,100hp engine.
Older books (pre-1990s?) may have different details than 1990-2000 books ?
- Thread starter
- #137
Thing with Soviet 12.7mm gun and I-16 was that the gun was too late for the I-16, unlike the Shvak cannon.
From here (Berezina = 'Berezinov's', or 'by Berezin'):
From January, 7 till February, 22, 1941 the machine gun Berezina successfully passed service trials.
The universal Berezin machine gun has been introduced into the inventory by air force on 22 April 1941.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From what I got in recent publications (mainly about the Spanish Civil War) the Type 5 and 6 were the first sent to Spain. The Type 5 and 6 had two 7.62 mm machine guns in the wings, the type 6 added a third under the fuselage according to some sources. The Type 10 had 4 machine guns, again 7.62, 2 in the wings, two in the nose firing through the propeller, this mentioned in the book by Frank Tinker "Some Still Live." I have in my library L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole by Patrick Laureau, an excellent source of information on the Spanish Republican Air Force (if you can read French) and there many photos showing the Type 5, 6 and 10, all seemed to be armed with the 7.62 machine gun, but from what I could see, there was nothing heavier used during the SCW.The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.
Several versions had 20mm cannon setting up a struggle between heavy armament and degraded performance.
Combine that with not enough production capacity to go around there were several cannon armed versions interspersed with machine gun armed versions.
As they increased the engine power they tried to bring the 20mm gun versions back.
For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .
They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl
But that with such a load was not good, even with an 1,100hp engine.
Older books (pre-1990s?) may have different details than 1990-2000 books ?
Powerplants ranged from 700 - 750HP (Shvetsov M-25, A&B) for the Types 5, 6 and 10, the Type 18 had an 800 HP M-62
Wiki mentions the Type 12 being armed with cannons.
I count 35 different model variants including low production test models
Lastly, it seems this aircraft was not only difficult to fly, it had some structural issues (earlier models) and seemed to be maintenance intensive.
Sometimes that's all that was needed...
There's no reason, apart from a time machine and a Japanese carrier sailing across the world to join the Axis powers, that this couldn't happen. Pat308 doesn't believe so, but let's remember that the A6M2 was superior to the frontline US fighters between 1940 and 1942 between 15,000 and up to and over 25,000 feet. Testing of the Aleutian Zero proved this in evaluation against the P-40 and P-39.
I also wouldn't get too hung up about the wing issues and dive limitations either, after all under those conditions the Zero was still excellent at low speed manoeuvrability and could out-manoeuvre almost every fighter it came across right until the very end of the war. It's worth noting that an aircraft doesn't earn a myth of invincibility by being slightly average suffering from structural restrictions. Let's remember that the A6M was the best aircraft carrier based fighter between 1940 and 1942 at least.
The Zero's armament is worth considering too, two cannon and two machine guns, this was the standard armament of the Bf 109 Emil and as pointed out to me in another thread, the first Emils were often armed with just four machine guns and no cannon, yet they notched up a high tally of British fighters.
As for the lack of armour, Zeroes shot down plenty of aircraft with armour plating and plenty of Japanese pilots survived combat despite not having armour plating. The argument that because it didn't have armour plating and self-sealing tanks it wouldn't last in Europe is a fallacy without foundation and doesn't give the Japanese pilots their due - they were highly aggressive and innovative in their approach and equipped with a powerful and long ranged fighter they achieved mastery in the skies over South East Asia swiftly.
At least he stipulates that his work is fiction. Or is it...
