Do we really need to belabor the obvious?Time for a "Which is better, Ki-43 or the A6M?" thread?
FIREPOWER MATTERS!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Do we really need to belabor the obvious?Time for a "Which is better, Ki-43 or the A6M?" thread?
Not nessecarily.Time for a "Which is better, Ki-43 or the A6M?" thread?
I'll take two 20s and two 7.7s over two 7.7s any day. You can shoot 7.7s into a B17 until the cows come home and still not bring it down.And NEITHER had it!
Evidently, both types had enough firepower to ruin a good number of Allied pilots' day.And NEITHER had it!
We ain't talking B-17s. We're talking paper-mache vs aluminum foil!I'll take two 20s and two 7.7s over two 7.7s any day. You can shoot 7.7s into a B17 until the cows come home and still not bring it down.
The Hyabusa's .30MGs were enough to shred anything that didn't have armor protection, including hapless crewmen that were on the receiving end.We ain't talking B-17s. We're talking paper-mache vs aluminum foil!
Arguably, the A6M was armed more heavily than any US fighter in service in 1942.And NEITHER had it!
P-38?Arguably, the A6M was armed more heavily than any US fighter in service in 1942.
We ain't talking B-17s. We're talking paper-mache vs aluminum foil!
MAY be, but the only serious damage to Lew Slagle's F4F was done by 20MMs. The rest was just punctured sheet metal. That was pretty obvious from the photo. Landing gear and flap retraction and wing fold mechanisms were all shattered, and there were big holes in the aft fuselage and under the belly.The Hyabusa's .30MGs were enough to shred anything that didn't have armor protection, including hapless crewmen that were on the receiving end.
Lets assume for the moment that the U.S. military saw the emergence of the A6M in September 1940 and through the following months as a sort of advance in design on the Ki-27. (This of course also assumes that the relevant authorities saw the Nakajima as a reasonably good aircraft even if not as good as the P-40, P-35, etc.) It would seem reasonable that they should look at their aircraft under development, especially those that might be operational in the Pacific and at least try to tweak the performance of those machines. In August 1939 Larry Bell proposed that the Turbocharger be removed from the P-39, leaving only the engines 1st stage supercharger. Is it so unreasonable that given the realization of needed improved performance the USAAC/F could have directed Bell to take steps in redesign in order to reinstall the Turbo? Also the first test flight of the XF5F was April of 1940 and it's development might have been given a little push.You had 7 fighter aircraft either in production or being developed during this time (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, F4U, F6F). Do you stop the presses and re-evaluate or press on with your original spec?
With the P39, building in an effective turbocharger would have required a complete redesign and enlargement of the basic airplane. There just wasn't enough room in that diminutive airframe to do it right. The XP39's turbo was grafted on the side like a wart on a toad. There just wasn't enough horsepower available to give good performance with that enlarged airframe and all the weighty items to make it combat ready. (Guns, ammo, armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.)Lets assume for the moment that the U.S. military saw the emergence of the A6M in September 1940 and through the following months as a sort of advance in design on the Ki-27. (This of course also assumes that the relevant authorities saw the Nakajima as a reasonably good aircraft even if not as good as the P-40, P-35, etc.) It would seem reasonable that they should look at their aircraft under development, especially those that might be operational in the Pacific and at least try to tweak the performance of those machines. In August 1939 Larry Bell proposed that the Turbocharger be removed from the P-39, leaving only the engines 1st stage supercharger. Is it so unreasonable that given the realization of needed improved performance the USAAC/F could have directed Bell to take steps in redesign in order to reinstall the Turbo? Also the first test flight of the XF5F was April of 1940 and it's development might have been given a little push.
Actually the XP-39 turbo was directly below the engine where the radiators were installed after the turbo was deleted. This turbo was a Rube Goldberg arrangement with no chance whatsoever of being reliable enough for combat even with a development program as long as the P-38 or P-47. A lightened P-39D would have had about the same performance as the turbo XP-39.With the P39, building in an effective turbocharger would have required a complete redesign and enlargement of the basic airplane. There just wasn't enough room in that diminutive airframe to do it right. The XP39's turbo was grafted on the side like a wart on a toad. There just wasn't enough horsepower available to give good performance with that enlarged airframe and all the weighty items to make it combat ready. (Guns, ammo, armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.)
The F5F represented a numbers problem. Engine availability constraints dictated that every F5F would cost you two F4Fs not built. It MAY have been better than the Wildcat, but not likely TWICE as good.
To gain what? Maybe the P-40 and P-39 "could have" been lightened (as discussed in another thread). Unless directed by either the AAC or the Navy, the manufactures of the day were going to press on with their product unless there was something that really jumped out at them, and as good as the Zero was in the beginning of the war, I don't see that happening.Lets assume for the moment that the U.S. military saw the emergence of the A6M in September 1940 and through the following months as a sort of advance in design on the Ki-27. (This of course also assumes that the relevant authorities saw the Nakajima as a reasonably good aircraft even if not as good as the P-40, P-35, etc.) It would seem reasonable that they should look at their aircraft under development, especially those that might be operational in the Pacific and at least try to tweak the performance of those machines. In August 1939 Larry Bell proposed that the Turbocharger be removed from the P-39, leaving only the engines 1st stage supercharger. Is it so unreasonable that given the realization of needed improved performance the USAAC/F could have directed Bell to take steps in redesign in order to reinstall the Turbo? Also the first test flight of the XF5F was April of 1940 and it's development might have been given a little push.
The F4F-3 and F4F-4 Wildcat both used P&W 2 STAGE engines, the XF5F used Wright 1820 2 SPEED engines, same as the later model Dauntless used. So there wouldn't have been an engine constraint between those 2.With the P39, building in an effective turbocharger would have required a complete redesign and enlargement of the basic airplane. There just wasn't enough room in that diminutive airframe to do it right. The XP39's turbo was grafted on the side like a wart on a toad. There just wasn't enough horsepower available to give good performance with that enlarged airframe and all the weighty items to make it combat ready. (Guns, ammo, armor, self-sealing tanks, etc.)
The F5F represented a numbers problem. Engine availability constraints dictated that every F5F would cost you two F4Fs not built. It MAY have been better than the Wildcat, but not likely TWICE as good.
All this by listening to Chennault? I doubt it.Maybe the P43 would have been built with actual fuel tanks instead of wet wings that leaked all the time.
Torpedos, both air launched and surface type might have been tested better.
Realistic training attacks by B17's against maneuvering ships with dummy bombs from proposed attack altitudes showing that hits are unrealistic.
Well they didn't listen to Chennault at all. But the question was "what if they had listened or paid attention?". They weren't going to get the Hellcat or Corsair any quicker. They might have gotten the P51 quicker if they hadn't left it sitting on an airfield for several months after that one test pilot said it was junk. Not sure if P38 could have been speeded up or not.All this by listening to Chennault? I doubt it.