Mitsubishi A7M Versus Grumman F6F

[MatthewB]

Folding wings add weight and complexity to an airframe. Fixed wings give you slightly improved performance, faster build times and less maintenance.

IDK, it seems that Japan only went half way on their carrier program. Non-folding aircraft demanding hangar space, inadequate protection from fire designed into the ships, poor damage control procedures from the crews, slow and dangerous CAG turnaround and rearming/refueling procedures, no radar, no catapults, inadequate AA, etc, etc. And lastly an insufficient aircraft and pilot replacement scheme.

 

[sloreck]

In general Japanese fighters went for maneuverability to be "knife fighters" at the cost of armor, self sealing tanks, more armament etc. Once Allied pilots knew that playing the knife fight game with Zeros et al was a losing game, even the best Japanese pilots were at a disadvantage. US naval aircraft could take more damage, had more power, could out-dive, etc so they had the option whether to play or go around. Controlling the fight is a huge advantage.

 

[TonyA]

In general Japanese fighters went for maneuverability to be "knife fighters" at the cost of armor, self sealing tanks, more armament etc. Once Allied pilots knew that playing the knife fight game with Zeros et al was a losing game, even the best Japanese pilots were at a disadvantage. US naval aircraft could take more damage, had more power, could out-dive, etc so they had the option whether to play or go around. Controlling the fight is a huge advantage.

"Bringing a knife to a gun fight", as the saying goes...

 

[tomo pauk]

Really the A7M should have been specified in early 1941 and entering service for Midway in summer 1942. The IJN only had to look at Europe and see the rapid advancement in fighter aircraft from early 1939 when the A6M prototype flew to 1941 to know the Wallies were not sitting still. I wonder if the Japanese were themselves stuck in the Wallies’ mentality of the Zero’s invincibility.

I don't think that anybody managed to specify an aircraft in one year and field it in another (bar the He 162?).

IJN dropped the ball with their fighters' development:
- Raiden specified as land-based fighter, instead of demanding the carrier-borne fighter design 1st to be made
- messing with floatplane fighters, instead of having a competing design for a fighter by Kawainshi by 1942
- not insisting with having Zero powered by either Kinsei or Ha-109 by 1942/43

...plus assorted issues (no co-operation with IJA when possible (and vice-versa, of course), lack of protection on Zero until too late and with performance penalty, questionable quality and quantity of installed radios etc).

I suppose one could argue that Britain and Germany’s primary fighter from 1939 to 1945 was the Spitfire and Bf-109. So, perhaps I’m being unfair criticizing the IJN for keeping A6M for so long without a replacement. However, a Sptifire or Bf-109 in 1945 was vastly different than one in 1939, with even the 1941-43 models advancing significantly. Was a A6M in 1943 better than one in 1941?

Zero of 1943 was a much better fighter than version(s) from 1941 (better engines & radios, better performance, improved armament), however by that time Japanese were out-played and out-numbered.

 

[PhilKearny]

I don't think that anybody managed to specify an aircraft in one year and field it in another (bar the He 162?).

The Mustang is pretty close to that. UK ordered the Mustang/NA-73 in March of 1940, with no design yet fixed. The prototype NA-73X was rolled out in September 1940, just 102 days after the order had been placed; it first flew on 26 October 1940, 149 days into the contract, according to Wikipedia. The initial Mustang arrived in the UK in October 1941, and the first Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942.

 

[hardrada55]

Have the original 16-Shi Japanese Navy specifications for the successor to Mitsubishi's A6M "Zero" fighter ever surfaced?

As I understand it, there was a delay in starting design work on the 16-Shi design for a successor to the new A6M in 1940 and 1941 because of problems with development of the 14-Shi Mitsubishi J2M land based interceptor "Raiden" and the illness of chief designer Jiro Horikoshi. By the time Mitsubishi was able to return work on the successor to the Zero, it was April of 1942 and the specifications had been updated to the 17-Shi version. The 17-Shi specifications resulted in the Mitsubishi A7M "Sam" carrier fighter.

 

[Jellico]

IDK, it seems that Japan only went half way on their carrier program. Non-folding aircraft demanding hangar space, inadequate protection from fire designed into the ships, poor damage control procedures from the crews, slow and dangerous CAG turnaround and rearming/refueling procedures, no radar, no catapults, inadequate AA, etc, etc. And lastly an insufficient aircraft and pilot replacement scheme.

It is called the all mighty yen.

Rich and powerful nations like the British Empire or especially the US could/can afford all the little trimmings to do most things competently. Not just in the military. Little things like rule of law, workplace health and safety, and tackling corruption. The little little things add up as force multipliers and make these nations into highly flexible, resilient behemoths.

Poorer nations can't afford the trimmings and tend to specialize. They have certain things that they do very, very well. To a degree that they can outperform the rich nation in specific fields. But they aren't as flexible and are a lot more brittle.

None of this is a judgement. Just an acknowledgement that nice things have costs and not everyone can afford them.