The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

michael rauls said:
The question is, would Pearl Harbor have been carried out without the Zeros and its capabilities
Click to expand...
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.
 
michael rauls said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
fubar57 said:
I like using this site, quick and to the point...https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=619
Click to expand...
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.
 
fubar57 said:
It also had provisions for a drop tank, 132ish liters (35 gal.) so range wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
michael rauls said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Claude was an aging previous generation fighter ostensibly able to accomplish the mission, but not with much margin for error.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
568
eagledad
E
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register