March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I don't think and haven't said that I've "proven" anything. In fact, the only thing I've said about this, and I'll repeat it now, is that I think we're talking past each other.

If you want to argue any more about this you'll have to find someone else. I'm uninterested at this point.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

This was before the war in the Pacific against a formidable foe in the US armed forces, the issues are sorted. It's like the Bf 109F-1's hori stab falling off, weakness that had to be cured, and once it was, the Friedrich was an excellent combat fighter.

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.

Why? And what would you need the super long range for? The Bf 109 managed quite well against the French the British, The Poles, Russians, the smaller Allied nations, why wouldn't the Zero in the same situation, with its diminishing rage under the conditions is still far superior to every other European fighter in theatre. The Zero could fly a lot farther than a Bf 109 - this myth of not being able to operate in Europe is simply hogwash with no substantiating evidence. You don't need to fly from Germany to Malta when you can fly from Italy.

 

[nuuumannn]

If you want to argue any more about this you'll have to find someone else. I'm uninterested at this point.

Sorry man, I'm not arguing per se, I'm disagreeing with the whole premise. Don't take it personally, it's not an attack against you or Pat308 for that matter, I just don't believe there is validity in what's being put forward.

It's okay to disagree with each other. There's no hostility intended and certainly none expected, so we're good.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry man, I'm not arguing per se, I'm disagreeing with the whole premise. Don't take it personally, it's not an attack against you or Pat308 for that matter, I just don't believe there is validity in what's being put forward.

It's okay to disagree with each other. There's no hostility intended and certainly none expected, so we're good.

We're good.

 

[nuuumannn]

We're good.

Awesome, I'm pleased about that.

Here's a cool song from artists across the Tasman...

 

[GrauGeist]

The A6M2 had a max. range of 1,500+ miles. It's combat radius is 79 miles shy of the distance from Berlin to London.

If the IJN (or Luftwaffe or whoever) were flying missions from France into Great Britain, they would not need to use economic cruise for max. combat radius.

The major shortcoming of the Bf109E, was it's limited range: 186 mile combat radius, which was later extended with a 76 gallon drop tank - but not by much.

There is absolutely no reason why the A6M2 could not have been successful in the BoB.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If I was a pilot and it was my life on the line, I'd probably opt for the 109F-1/-2. Massively fast for the period (touching 615 kph/380 mph), excellent altitude performance and reportedly the best handling of any of the 109s. Anything I can't turn fight, I can energy fight. If I can't do that, I can pretty much run or climb away from anything else in the sky.

If I was commanding an air war in 1940, probably the A6M2 Model 11. The combination of reliability, range, performance, armament and ability to be land or carrier based make it really hard to pass on as an actual weapon of war. Good against fighters of the period (particularly so given the tactics taught/employed by most air forces) and excellent against bombers. It's major flaws (high speed maneuverability and altitude performance) aren't exposed nearly as much against the opposition of 1940 as they are against the opposition of 1942 & 1943.

 

[GrauGeist]

If I was a pilot and it was my life on the line, I'd probably opt for the 109F-1/-2. Massively fast for the period (touching 615 kph/380 mph), excellent altitude performance and reportedly the best handling of any of the 109s. Anything I can't turn fight, I can energy fight. If I can't do that, I can pretty much run or climb away from anything else in the sky.

If I was commanding an air war in 1940, probably the A6M2 Model 11. The combination of reliability, range, performance, armament and ability to be land or carrier based make it really hard to pass on as an actual weapon of war. Good against fighters of the period (particularly so given the tactics taught/employed by most air forces) and excellent against bombers. It's major flaws (high speed maneuverability and altitude performance) aren't exposed nearly as much against the opposition of 1940 as they are against the opposition of 1942 & 1943.

Exactly.

In the period during the Battle of France/Battle of Britain, the A6M2 would have been a dangerous adversary.

 

[wuzak]

There is absolutely no reason why the A6M2 could not have been successful in the BoB.

There weren't any (many?) actually in service at that time.

 

[GrauGeist]

There weren't any (many?) actually in service at that time.

Granted they entered service in limited numbers in China, early summer of 1940, but the consensus seems to be that it was not up European standards in the early years of the war.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm having a tough time phrasing this.
Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

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.

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.

The I-16 types are a mess. Many changes in armament and engine and not a good record keeping in the factories make it hard to be sure of the type equiment, with some refitted to latter types standars

Type 12 was a versión with ShKAS mgs and ShVAK 20mm cannons in the wings. Small production serie. Yefim Gordon says that a batch was prepared for shippement to the Spanish Republic but didn't confirm that arrived. They could be not sent or sent but the MV they were in got sunk or stopped by non intervention forces. I had never heard that cannon armed I-16 were used in Spain, only type 5, 6 and 10 (including a high altitude versión)

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm having a tough time phrasing this.
Could the A6M1 be operated effectively as an ETO fighter, not using what worked over the empty Pacific? Climb to 20-25k and cruise up there to the objective and still have adequate fuel for escort/loiter/combat/return over the same distances as the Spits and 'Schmidts did?

And then some.

The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).

 

[PAT303]

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

Lots of aircraft were shot down by lesser aircraft, even the Malta Gladiators shot down their share but there is a difference between holding on and taking control and dominating the air, the A6M could and did dominate but only until the Allied pilots learnt how to fight it, the Zero only had one area that it ruled and that was low and slow in a turning fight, once pilots realised that and stayed above 200mph the Zero lost the only advantage it had.

 

[PAT303]

And then some.

The A6M's combat radius (take off, fly to objective, fight, then return to base) was longer than the Bf109's one-way max. range (without drop tank).

As I have said before, both the 109 and especially the Spit could not only have the range of the A6M but be faster, higher climbing with more firepower but pilot protection and survivability was deemed to be more important.

 

[PAT303]

Not necessarily, the RAF pilots recognised that the best way to defeat the Bf 109 was dog fighting,

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,

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.

RAF pilots more often than not found themselves under the 109's so a turning dogfight was the only real option they had.
The BoB was fought at high attitude up to and over 30,000ft, is wasn't until after the BoB that heights came down which caught the Spitfire out because most fighting occurred at around 20,000ft from 1941 which is one of the reasons the MkV was outclassed, even when the 60 series was introduced in the MkIX the FW190 had the advantage at around 20,000ft because that was the point the low speed gear was maxing out and the high speed was just starting so the Merlin 66 was developed which was nothing more than the 61 with modified gears giving more power at that altitude.
The last point is easy to dispel, after the battle of France all new aircraft on both the British and German side were fitted with armor and the aircraft already in service were retrofitted with field kits, many many pilots were killed and injured by MG bullet hits over France and as per JG26 records the pilots demanded armor before the outbreak of the BoB.

 

[PAT303]

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.

Again proof is in the pudding, no allied aircraft followed the A6M's design philosophy, none, the A6M finished the war the same way it started because it was a design dead end, as for escort duties the A6M could fly deeper into the UK or deeper into Europe going the other way which does nothing more than bring it into range of more fighter groups as well as giving the defenders more time to intercept it, flying into the chain home network against brand new Spits in 1940 or radar directed FW190's over France in '41 is very different to flying over Darwin against inexperienced pilots in clapped out MkV's or Wildcats in the Pacific.

 

[PAT303]

The A6M would need a functioning radio.

How many pilots today would fly an aircraft anywhere without communications equipment?, or into combat without a parachute?

 

[PAT303]

I think we are venturing into "Hating on the Zero" time right now.

Not at all, aircraft are like any other fighting machine, there is a balance between performance firepower and protection, the Zero doesn't have that balance.

 

[wuzak]

so the Merlin 66 was developed which was nothing more than the 61 with modified gears giving more power at that altitude.

The Merlin 66 was a lot stronger than the 61 and had a larger supercharger impeller - 12"/10.1" vs 11.5"/10.1" for the 61 and 63.