March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[nuuumannn]

Flying relatively low and slow is very different between PTO and ETO.

Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.

Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft at medium to low altitudes, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to because the F4F couldn't survive otherwise.

Again, without a time machine, it's impossible to judge exactly how effective the A6M would have been in Europe, but to assume it was not going to survive because it had no armour plating poor armament and only functioned in the PTO low speed regime leaves out a whole lot of facts and evidence to the contrary.

I guess I'll have to warm up my Japanese time machine - just my luck it'll look like a Nissan Leaf and not like a Mitsubishi Zero...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.

Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to.

Again, without a time machine, it's impossible to judge exactly how effective the A6M would have been in Europe, but to assume it was not going to survive because it had no armour plating poor armament and only functioned in the low speed regime leaves out a whole lot of facts and evidence to the contrary.

I guess I'll have to warm up my Japanese time machine - just my luck it'll look like a Nissan Leaf and not like a Mitsubishi Zero...

I was speaking specifically to range regarding Pat's point. To get range out of the Zero you had to fly a profile that didn't conduce to lengthy survival in the ETO, but was well-suited to long overwater flights, few radars, little interceptor risk, and very little flak.

It's a fair point he makes and should be acknowledged, so I did.

 

[BiffF15]

Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting, the Hurricane in particular was a superior dog fighter to both types and its low speed manoeuvrability saved its pilot on numerous occasions. German pilots were notably hubristic about the Hurricane, as we know, but it could easily turn inside a Bf 109 and they often found out the hard way that in skilled hands, the Hurri was a potent adversary - the highest scoring BoB squadron was a Hurricane unit - Polish of course.

Typical BoB combat started in the vertical plain but in order to get those pesky Englanders shooting down the bombers they had to get down and take them on, one by one, which invariably evolved into turning scraps between individual aircraft at medium to low altitudes, the exact playground where the Zero excelled. Remember, the US Navy bested the Zero with superior tactics in using pairs, rather than relying on the F4F's qualities - the A6M2 was superior in almost every respect to the F4F, so they had to because the F4F couldn't survive otherwise.

Again, without a time machine, it's impossible to judge exactly how effective the A6M would have been in Europe, but to assume it was not going to survive because it had no armour plating poor armament and only functioned in the PTO low speed regime leaves out a whole lot of facts and evidence to the contrary.

I guess I'll have to warm up my Japanese time machine - just my luck it'll look like a Nissan Leaf and not like a Mitsubishi Zero...

I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo... You bring up good points, to me, the biggest being how a plane is used is as important, if not more so, than it's capabilities alone. Also, you would need to put some good Lucas Electronics Radios in a Zero to use it with Brit GCI / tactics.

 

[nuuumannn]

To get range out of the Zero you had to fly a profile that didn't conduce to lengthy survival in the ETO, but was well-suited to long overwater flights, few radars, little interceptor risk, and very little flak.

Again that's debatable and doesn't give the Japanese their due. Does Pat 308 believe that the Japanese do not have the ability to evolve under differing combat conditions? I can't see why not. The Zero had good altitude performance and over water and over land, what's the difference, really? What is Pat 308 expecting this Zero would do? Fly against or for the Germans over Europe? There's no reason at all that the A6M2 could not have supplanted the Bf 109 in the bomber escort role during the Battle of Britain, which is the most likely of imaginary scenarios the Zero would have to take on, time machine in hand.

 

[nuuumannn]

I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo...

Nice! Leaning toward the classic Nissan Gojira, myself...

 

[GrauGeist]

Why would the A6M have to conserve fuel in the European theater?

The A6M2 Type 11 had a combat radius of over 500 miles.

 

[SaparotRob]

The A6M would need a functioning radio.

 

[BiffF15]

Nice! Leaning toward the classic Nissan Gojira, myself...

Had to look that one up. It's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!

 

[nuuumannn]

Why would the A6M have to conserve fuel in the European theater?

Exactly. Again, what are asking our Zero to do and whom would it be doing it against?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again that's debatable and doesn't give the Japanese their due. Does Pat 308 believe that the Japanese do not have the ability to evolve under differing combat conditions? I can't see why not. The Zero had good altitude performance and over water and over land, what's the difference, really? What is Pat 308 expecting this Zero would do? Fly against or for the Germans over Europe? There's no reason at all that the A6M2 could not have supplanted the Bf 109 in the bomber escort role during the Battle of Britain, which is the most likely of imaginary scenarios the Zero would have to take on, time machine in hand.

I think in either role the Zero would have to fly higher and faster, which would seem to reduce its range compared to PTO ops. I wouldn't want to be slogging at 220mph over Axis or Allied territory, myself. Higher alt + higher speed = less range, no?

 

[nuuumannn]

t's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!

Yup, the Skyline Gojira (Godzilla is the English bastardisation of Gojira) is a beast. Good quality Skylines fetch a tidy price on the second hand market and are hard to find because kids butcher them, not to mention they get nicked a lot. The Nissan GTR is its successor and has an equally fearsome reputation.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I might pick and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo... You bring up good points, to me, the biggest being how a plane is used is as important, if not more so, than it's capabilities alone. Also, you would need to put some good Lucas Electronics Radios in a Zero to use it with Brit GCI / tactics.

Any plane is only as good as how it fits the doctrine it's designed for and the pilots tasked to execute the mission.

As for the radios, where the hell was Sony when you needed it?!
































Yes, I know. Ir's a joke.

 

[nuuumannn]

I wouldn't want to be slogging at 220mph over Axis or Allied territory, myself. Higher alt + higher speed = less range, no?

When you have the range of the Zero, over the distances that German fighters were flying to reach the enemy, the Zero is certainly capable of achieving it (again, what are you envisaging the Zero doing and for whom?). There was no other fighter in the world, let alone the ETO with the range of the Zero between 1940 and 1942. The Fairey Fulmar had a range of 800 miles on internal fuel, so that took the cake, but the Zero had a superior combat radius.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think we're talking past each other, nuuumannn .

 

[nuuumannn]

I think we're talking past each other

We might be. The thing is, I'm not sure what it is that you are envisaging by saying that the Zero wouldn't be able to operate in an ETO environment, well, I have to picture which ETO environment we are discussing, because there wasn't just one.

I still fail to see how an effective fighter like the A6M could not operate in one theater or another. The concept is a bit ill-considered, really, especially when you have aircraft like the lesser performing Hawker Hurricane active in almost every theatre during the war and as we know, the A6M could out perform the Hurricane with ease.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We might be. The thing is, I'm not sure what it is that you are envisaging by saying that the Zero wouldn't be able to operate in an ETO environment, well, I have to picture which ETO environment we are discussing, because there wasn't just one.

I still fail to see how an effective fighter like the A6M could not operate in one theater or another. The concept is a bit ill-considered, really, especially when you have aircraft like the lesser performing Hawker Hurricane active in almost every theatre during the war and as we know, the A6M could out perform the Hurricane with ease.

I wasn't saying it couldn't operate in Europe. I was acknowledging that Pat had a point in saying that the Zero's range was largely a function of its operational conditions.

I did not and have not said that the Zero couldn't operate in Europe. I have only said that Pat's right, that the Zero's range comes from a flight profile that isn't very useful in ETO.

 

[nuuumannn]

I was acknowledging that Pat had a point in saying that the Zero's range was largely a function of its operational conditions.

That's the point I don't agree with, because it wasn't. As mentioned, no fighter had the range of the Zero, none (in that 1940-42 time period). Why would it not when the Bf 109, so infamously short legged reigned supreme over Western and into Eastern Europe between 1940 and 1943.

The hypothesis just doesn't stack up.

As previously mentioned, if used instead of Bf 109s during the BoB the bingo fuel light would not be flicking on 20 minutes into combat sorties over Britain. The aircraft had the range to fly from Germany to Malta - it's about a 1,000 miles, so over the Med its range would have been enormously useful.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's the point I don't agree with, because it wasn't. As mentioned, no fighter had the range of the Zero, none. Why would it not when the Bf 109, so infamously short legged reigned supreme over Western and into Eastern Europe between 1940 and 1943.

The hypothesis just doesn't stack up.

Because flying at 200 mph at ten thousand feet won't get you far in Europe. Over the Pacific, the radar, flak, and fighters weren't present, and so such a vulnerable flight profile was fine.

Now try that over Calais or the Ruhr.

 

[nuuumannn]

Because flying at 200 mph at ten thousand feet won't get you far in Europe.

Who says it has to fly that profile? Bf 109s rgularly approached Britain at altitudes in excess of 30,000 feet. Are you telling me the Zero couldn't do this, even though it has far superior range than the Bf 109? And why would Zeroes be entering combat over the Ruhr? They are on the Axis side! Is the 8th swapping its P-51s for Zeroes now??

I think we are venturing into "Hating on the Zero" time right now. It beggars belief that you might think this scenario proves anything.

 

[Shortround6]

Part of it was pilots.

But without the time machine the 1940 Zero did have few liabilities.

The Zero had it's dive limits raised several times but at least once between the A6M2 model 11 and the A6M2 model 21 used at Pearl Harbor.
Any later comparisons (A6M3 ?) but defiantly the A6M5 had tweaks done to the dive speed. It wasn't enough because the F6F, F4U and the Army planes were so much better to begin with.
The Japanese did quite a bit of work to the wing over the spring of 1941 but about 12 of the early Zeros saw combat and they didn't break any of them so it is hard to say what would have happened in a tougher combat theater.

According to one source (could be in error?) the A6M2 suffered an almost 50% increase in fuel consumption going from 180Kt to 190kts.
But the Zero could probably still out range the Do 17 and Ju 88 so it may not matter much, just forget the super long ranges.