Why could they not produce there own. They could have liscence built it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
R Leonard said:Wouldn't matter. If you've no production capacity, then you aren't going to produce. Having a couple of examples of the aircraft and a complete set of plans and specs would do you no good. You'd need a location, all the necessary machinery to produce the airplane, the engines, the whole ball of wax and especially trained skilled people. So here you are in a country that has to import everything (remember you went to war to secure raw materials) and you suddenly feel the need to produce an aircraft with which you've no experience? And everyday your stream of supply of raw materials gets smaller and smaller. Also remember that Japanese aircraft production wasn't like walking into a Grumman plant and everything you need is there. Japanese production was a jobber's paradise. Very small facilities manufacturing a specific part and sending it to another facility to be connected to another part to be sent to another facility . . . and finally an airplane. Precisely the situation that led the strategic bombing folks to consider an entire city as a target, the piece works operations were all over, not just in manufacturing areas but in residential as well. And where are the people to build the plane, errr, put the parts together, going to come from when you've got all you skilled labor working day and night on the production you need right damn now. I'd also suggest there would be a certain amount of chauvinism raising its head "We don't need their stinkin' airplanes". No, wouldn't matter how good the 190 would be compared to the A6M. They couldn't, reinforced with a wouldn't, put it into production.
Rich
Rich
Hold on Rich. There was thousands of backyard sheds being used in the USA to produce a/c bits and pieces, as well as other war related parts. Yes, even some stuff for the A-bomb.
FLYBOYJ said:"In terms of individual dogfight and discipline, Japanese were among the best."
This is where I disagree with you! When the US entered the war tactics were developed that eventually tore the Japanese to ribbons. Yes, they were dogfighters in the traditional sense, but took their lumps tactically. Proof of the pudding was when folks like Cmdr. Thach who developed tactics that enabled F4F pilots to achieve like an 8 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. And lets not forget those Flying Tiger guys in China!
evangilder said:I am not saying they weren't effective, what I am saying is that they were more vulnerable to fire than the German fighters. It poses an interesting what if. There is also the question of the tactics involved and a number of other variables.
wmaxt said:You'r right. Tactics are the main point I think. The F4F was outclassed by the Zero but with a change of tactics became very compettitive. the Japanese never did.
1) they fought like Samuri - singly
2) Poor group coordination - discriptions were gaggle and swarm, no orginization.
3) They didn't cover each other giving the Allies clear shots.
R Leonard said:the Japanese were familiar with the 109 and they didn't like it
Among other concerns, I'd suggest that the IJN wasn't interested in the Me-109 simply because it wasn't carrier capable. What would be the point of adopting an airframe in need of extensive modification (read: time, energy, and resources) when they were developing perfectly acceptable (for their concept of aerial warfare, at least) carrier monoplane fighters, beginning with the A5M, much less the A6M.
R Leonard said:I'd also suggest that the Germans, had they had the opportunity to do so, would have taken one look at the A6M and ask some pretty sharp questions: Where's the pilot armor? Where's the self sealing fuel tanks? Where's the ignition dampening for the radio? What do you mean only 60 rounds of 20mm? They probably, and rightly, would have concluded that here was a plane that was designed to defeat late 1930's biplanes in individual combat, combining the low speed maneuverability of a biplane into a high speed monoplane airframe.
Specification of A6M2 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 21:
One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial, rated at 940 hp for takeoff, 950 hp at 13,780 feet.
Performance: Maximum speed 331 mph at 14,930 feet. Cruising speed 207 mph. Initial climb rate 4517 feet per minute. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 27 seconds. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Normal range 1160 miles. Maximum range 1930 miles. Radius of turn with entry speed of 230 mph was 1118 feet. Entering a 180 degree steep turn with an entry speed of 230 mph, the fighter could complete the turn in 5.62 seconds, with an exit speed from the turn of 189 mph. At slower speeds, the turning radius was 612 feet. Normal positive g-load factor was 7g, with a safety factor of an additional 1.8g. Normal negative g-load factor was 3.5g, with a safety factor of an extra 1.8g.
Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 8 11/16 inches, height 10 feet 0 1/16 inches, wing area 241.5 square feet. Weights: 3704 pounds empty, 5313 pounds loaded, 6164 pounds maximum. Fuel capacity: Internal fuel capacity was 114 Imp gall. One 72.6 Imp. gall drop tank could be carried underneath the fuselage.
Armament: Two 7.7-mm Type 97 machine guns {with 500 rpg} in the fuselage decking and two 20-mm Type 99 {mod 1} cannon {with 60 rpg} in the wings. Two 132-pound bombs could be carried on underwing racks.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html#RTFToC3
{note: additiona data in curly bracks and dark blue}
Powerplant: Daimler-Benz DB 601A, twelve cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 865 kW (1175 HP) at 2400 rpm for take-off, V.D.M. electrically-operated controllable-pitch fully-feathered three-bladed metal propellor.
Performance: Maximum speed 570 kph (354 mph) at 3800m (12480'). Cruising speed 400 kph (249 mph) at 62.5 percent rated power, stalling speed 121 kph (75 mph) in landing configuration with flaps down. Range 663 km (412 miles) at 62.5 percent rated power. Initial climb rate 945 meters/min (3100 ft/min). Service ceiling 10973 meters (36000').
Dimensions: Span 9.86m (32' 4.25"); Length 8.63m (28' 4"); Height 2.58m (8' 5.5" over nose, tail on ground); Wing Area 16.165 sq. meters (174 sq. ft).
Weights: Empty 1996 kg (4440 lbs), Gross loaded 2504 kg (5520 lbs).
Fuel Tankage 400 Liters (88 Imperial Gallons) in fuselage tank contoured behind and under pilot's seat.
Armament: Two 7.9mm MG 17 machine guns with 1000 rounds per gun, mounted on engine crankcase, with muzzles protruding into blast troughs in upper nose decking, firing through propellor arc. Two 20mm MG-FF cannon with 60 rounds per gun, mounted in wings and firing outside propellor arc.
http://www.bf109.com/performance.html#G6 {note: I've reorganized the info to conform to the Zero data above, but I've not changed anything}
R Leonard said:The effect of these factors becomes plain when you look at those instances where they did not occur. A classic example is the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. Forces were somewhat evenly matched. Where the USN F4F fighter pilots played the A6M game they got chewed up. Where they played the USN game, the A6Ms. if not equally gnawed, were at least unable to inflict the drubbings they had been administering up to that point. In fact, against the F4F, in the first year of the war, A6Ms were never able to achieve and exchange ratio better than about 1.1:1. Hardly what one would expect from it's reputation. And it can't all be explained by the Thach Weave either. Squadrons did not start to seriously use that tactic until the late fall of 1942, towards the end of that first year. Kind of makes you wonder about all this great combat experience the IJN pilots supposedly brought to the table, but that's another subject and you don't want to get me started down that road.
I'd also suggest that one might wish to look into operational doctrine and practices. How a plane performs is certainly important, but how it is employed is more important. The A6M (which I'd also point out was not in combat service at the time of the BoB and kind of makes the whole question somewhat silly) was the result of design specifications drawn up by the IJN and was heavily influenced by the IJN fighter pilot ethos. This was the way of the warrior and leaned way over into the realm of one on one combat a' la WWI. IJN tactics and doctrine were, possibly, the penultimate evolution of WWI biplane fighter tactics and, in my estimation, to an extent ignored the realities of combat in the modern high speed monoplane fighter in favor of some idealized aerial dance of death. This can be evidenced in ways ranging from their general preference for the low speed individual turn and burn combat to their persistence in maintaining the biplane based three plane section, nine plane division formations into 1944. As soon as an adversary refuses to play the low speed tag game, the A6M loses much of it's popular, and IMO misplaced, superiority. As soon as the lone-wolf, one at a time mentality bangs up with a doctrine of disciplined team tactics, using modern formations and concepts that play to the monoplane's strengths, then the whole platter of sushi goes out with the trash.
The A6M was designed for a totally different kind of war than the average German fighter pilot was trained to fight. It's design was driven by the psychology of its users. I don't think the Germans, not being Japanese, nor reaching into the Samurai culture for their role models, would have been happy with it at all.
Just my opinion(s).
Rich