The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[XBe02Drvr]

The question is, would Pearl Harbor have been carried out without the Zeros and its capabilities

Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms? That would be roughly akin to raiding Lae from Moresby with P26s. Twin 7.7s and short legs somehow just aren't all that reassuring. I suspect that scenario would require Kido Butai to approach dangerously closer to the target area in order to provide fighter escort.
Likewise, a navalized Hayabusa seems highly improbable, as it was designed to an entirely different standard, would probably suffer performance penalties from the ruggedizing required for carrier ops, and anyway wasn't going to happen, given the rivalry between Army and Navy.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms? That would be roughly akin to raiding Lae from Moresby with P26s. Twin 7.7s and short legs somehow just aren't all that reassuring. I suspect that scenario would require Kido Butai to approach dangerously closer to the target area in order to provide fighter escort.
Likewise, a navalized Hayabusa seems highly improbable, as it was designed to an entirely different standard, would probably suffer performance penalties from the ruggedizing required for carrier ops, and anyway wasn't going to happen, given the rivalry between Army and Navy.
Cheers,
Wes

Very good points. What I was mostly thinking of however were the aircraft that didn't get built because the A6m beat them out. Assuming there was one or two such designs( hard to imagine there wasn't at least one or two competing designs that lost out to the Zero but I don't know) of somewhat lesser capabilities would those shortcomings be enough to make Pearl Harbor too difficult and/or risky to undertake. Don't know if that's an answerable question( certainly not by me) but it would be the the deciding factor in whether the Zero did indeed turn the tide of the war by making posible the attack that brought the US into the war thereby insuring the defeat of the Axis. Although.................. I'm of the opinion that the Allies would most likely have won even without the US, almost certainly so if we were manufacturing arms for them but thats a seperate issue than tide turning and a whole nother can of worms I suppose.

 

[fubar57]

The A5M4 (in service 1938) had a range of 1,201 km (746 miles). It also had provisions for a drop tank, 132ish liters (35 gal.) so range wasn't a problem. Of course it didn't have the firepower of the A6M2

 

[michael rauls]

Cool...... off to wiki.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Probably a fully functional Ki-61 with a later series engine

Whose first prototype made its first flight a couple days AFTER Pearl Harbor.

 

[fubar57]

Cool...... off to wiki.

I like using this site, quick and to the point...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=619

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What I was mostly thinking of however were the aircraft that didn't get built because the A6m beat them out. Assuming there was one or two such designs

Other potential aircraft are irrelevant vis a vis the Zero's role as enabler and inspirer of the opening phases of the Pacific war. Any aircraft fulfilling that role would wear the mantle of "tide turner", but the Zero was there and did the job, so gets the credit.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

I like using this site, quick and to the point...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=619

Thanks for the tip on the site. Looks good.
I was aware of the Claude but thought the"4" sufix might denote a much improved version or perhaps an entirely different design. Seems like although performance( speed specifically) was not up to par with the A6m with a range like that it would certainly have made Pearl Harbor doable.
In addition I was thinking had the Zero never been designed what other plane would have been the replacement for the Claude. There must have been a couple competing designs though I've never read anything about such unlike German designs that lost out to the Bf109 for example where there is plenty of mention about them in various articles.
Think I'll do a little digging and see what I can turn up.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It also had provisions for a drop tank, 132ish liters (35 gal.) so range wasn't a problem.

I had forgotten about the drop tank. That gives a comfortable radius of action and even a little loiter time on target. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

Well apparently form what I was able to find out the requirements for the new Navy fighter were only sent to Nakajima and Mitsubishi and Nakajima pulled out of the competition thinking the requirements impossible so sounds like it was either A5m or A6m but it also sounds like, to me at least, that the A5m hade the capabilities to make Pearl Harbor doable so I don't know if the Zeros capabilities were unique enough to alone alow for Pear Harbor to be undertaken.

 

[Kevin J]

If the Zero turned the tide of the war by enabling the Pearl Harbor attack then it turned the tide in favour of the British and its allies, because after that the Axis was doomed.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

the A5m had the capabilities to make Pearl Harbor doable so I don't know if the Zeros capabilities were unique enough to alone alow for Pearl Harbor to be undertaken.

You hit the nail on the head. Essentially the options were A5M vs A6M. Zeke was a world class fighter with the performance to dominate it's operating arena, a real confidence enhancer for strategic decision makers. Claude was an aging previous generation fighter ostensibly able to accomplish the mission, but not with much margin for error.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Peter Gunn]

Can you imagine heading off to Oahu in your B5N escorted by A5Ms?

*SNIP*

Cheers,
Wes

Oh My! I don't believe I'd want to face down even the few P-40's airborne on Dec. 7 as an A5M jockey, at least now without a healthy dose of sake before launch.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Oh My! I don't believe I'd want to face down even the few P-40's airborne on Dec. 7 as an A5M jockey, at least now without a healthy dose of sake before launch.

Where's your samurai spirit, Saburo? Those Curtiss jockeys haven't yet been infested with the deadly up-and-down dogfighting virus, and you've got the best round 'n round dogfighter in the world! Tennoheika banzai!

 

[Peter Gunn]

Where's your samurai spirit, Saburo? Those Curtiss jockeys haven't yet been infested with the deadly up-and-down dogfighting virus, and you've got the best round 'n round dogfighter in the world! Tennoheika banzai!

BANZAI!!!

 

[Conslaw]

I think the A6M Zero is the only reason the Japanese did not lose the war by the end of 1942, but I don't see how it turned the tide. There is no question that it enabled a year of Japanese conquests though.

 

[Schweik]

The zero was definitely one of the reasons for the initial Japanese success, along with the Ki-43, a lot of very lethal (if also vulnerable) bombers like the G3M, G4M, B5N, and D3A, highly trained flight crews, as well as their highly effective air and sea-launched torpedoes, excellent and quite formidable warships and superbly trained navy - particularly in their astonishing skill at night combat.

To me probably their biggest flaw was the lack of a well developed air-sea rescue program, which dovetailed with the lack of armor and self-sealing fuel tanks on their planes. As one US Army document put it, shooting down a zero almost always meant killing the pilot. The same obviously applied for a D3A or G4M. For the US and Australian etc. planes, I don't know the exact ratio but I would guess it was more like 1/3 of the time averaged out over the first year. That pretty quickly leads to one side running out of pilots much quicker than the other.

 

[Schweik]

Pilots not wearing parachutes was also a problem...

 

[nuuumannn]

Claude was an aging previous generation fighter ostensibly able to accomplish the mission, but not with much margin for error.

True, I agree Wes, but let's not forget that the A5M was still in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. Three carriers still operated them, the Hosho, Ryujo and Zuiho and whilst the A5Ms were slated to provide long range escort to bombing attacks on the Philippines, the A6M with its pilots trained to economise fuel consumption meant that the superior and more modern type provided escort in that case.

It's also worth noting that without the A5M there would not have been an A6M; the former was the world's first naval carrier fighter monoplane to enter service and production. it's method of construction and design philosophy was expanded on to create the Mitsubishi 12-Shi fighter (the A5M was ample evidence that the Zero was not a 'copy' of a Western design). Also, as an alternative to the Mitsubishi submission to the specification, which was quite stringent, Nakajima was also issued the specification but pulled out (why?), so it remains to be seen whether Nakajima's Type '0' Carrier Fighter might have measured up to the Mitsubishi A6M. Might it have been a navalised Ki-43 or a new design altogether? The last Nakajima naval single seater was the 9-Shi fighter, which was a rough equivalent in performance and indeed appearance to the A5M, which bettered the Nakajima product and went into production and service.

Might make a fascinating what-if; a Nakajima Type 12-Shi carrier fighter.

 

[Schweik]

The Ki-43 would have had to have been substantially strengthened to conduct carrier operations.