The Zero's Maneuverability (4 Viewers)

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

That's why I thought it was smaller. Those I-400 subs were huge but still, I didn't think stuffing a plane that large was doable.
How the Japanese thought a single small strike aircraft was going to have any impact on US capability, strategy or morale is madness. Unless Japan can reach twenty years into the future and grab a B28 nuclear bomb, this submarine strike aircraft concept is a dead-end.
 
For the record, the I-400 class subs carried three Aichi M6A1 aircraft in their hangars while the smaller "AM" (I-13) class subs carried two M6A1s.

Unlike other types that carried recon aircraft, the I-13 and I-400 subs carried strike aircraft, which is why the Seiran was so large.

One of the planned operations for the I-13 and I-400 subs, were to attack the locks of the Panama canal, which was cancelled.
 
It's a wonder, given Nazi Germany's liking for the superlative kit that the Kreigsmarine did not field a submarine of the I-400 or Surcouf scale. There was the planned, Type XI-B uboat, of 4,650 tons submerged, armed with 4 × 5.9-inch (15 cm) naval guns and carrying an Arado Ar 231floatplane in a watertight hangar. But I mean really big, like the USSR's Project 717 invasion subs.
 
I thought the B5N was a land-based IJNAS aircraft?
 
The B5N actually saw combat in China and far eastern Pacific areas several years before 7 December 41.

It was actually slated to be replaced by '41/'42, but it's replacement never happened, so it soldiered on 'til the end.
 
The B5N actually saw combat in China and far eastern Pacific areas several years before 7 December 41.

It was actually slated to be replaced by '41/'42, but it's replacement never happened, so it soldiered on 'til the end.

Right, I was just talking about our "interaction" with it. It was most certainly used from carriers as well as land-bases -- just ask the Lexington, Yorktown, or Hornet, which all ate torpedoes from that vulture, and all those birds flown from IJN carriers.
 
Gotcha - add to that, one of the Hiryu's B5Ns delivered the kill-shot on the Arizona, too.
 
No, the B5N is the Kate torpedo bomber, used from Pearl Harbor onwards.
Dammit, I was thinking of the B5M Mabel. As a land-based aircraft, did it really have folding wings as Wiki claims? Then again, are these guys confused by B5N and B5M as well?

Given Mitsubishi's prominence in 1930's carrier aircraft with the A5M fighter and B2M torpedo bomber, I wonder why except for the A6M, the IJNAS relied on other firms, mainly Nakajima and Aichi for their CAGs. Why was there no Mitsubishi torpedo or dive bomber in the Kido Butai? And given their prominence, did Nakajima bid for the A6M's contract? A navalized Nakajima Ki-43 would do the trick, provided the appearance/spec was altered to avoid provoking the IJA/IJN rivalry. I've read that Nakajima ended up being the main mass-producer of the Zero under license, building more Zeros than Mitsubishi did.


A rare picture of a Japanese assembly line at the Nakajima Plant in Ota, Japan showing Mitsubishi A6M2 "Zero" Model 21s nearing completion.
 
Last edited:

I suspect Mitsubishi were kept busy updating and cranking out Zeros.
 

Users who are viewing this thread