How the Mitsubishi Zero won the Battle of Britain

Both in production before the A6M5C and leagues ahead of it.

Other than weapon availability, there was nothing done to the 1943 A6M5c that couldn't have been done in 1940. Mitsubishi went for the near lightest structure possible, thinner skins, thinner ribs, fewer rivets-- besides no armor or self sealing tanks

So was super light, but would wrinkle wing skins in a dive or high speed rolls, even with its 7.5G capability. One hole in the large tankage carried could be deadly.

A 1300 mile rugged Zero with equal climb and better maneuverability to Spitfire would be a real advantage even without the three 13mm MGs and with 60 round drums
 

Deleted member 1487

Other than weapon availability, there was nothing done to the 1943 A6M5c that couldn't have been done in 1940. Mitsubishi went for the near lightest structure possible, thinner skins, thinner ribs, fewer rivets-- besides no armor or self sealing tanks

So was super light, but would wrinkle wing skins in a dive or high speed rolls, even with its 7.5G capability. One hole in the large tankage carried could be deadly.

A 1300 mile rugged Zero with equal climb and better maneuverability to Spitfire would be a real advantage even without the three 13mm MGs and with 60 round drums
Even the extra super duraluminum alloy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy
 
Other than weapon availability, there was nothing done to the 1943 A6M5c that couldn't have been done in 1940. Mitsubishi went for the near lightest structure possible, thinner skins, thinner ribs, fewer rivets-- besides no armor or self sealing tanks

So was super light, but would wrinkle wing skins in a dive or high speed rolls, even with its 7.5G capability. One hole in the large tankage carried could be deadly.

A 1300 mile rugged Zero with equal climb and better maneuverability to Spitfire would be a real advantage even without the three 13mm MGs and with 60 round drums

Apart from learning how to build the A6M5c from the experience gained from the building of and the operational experience of all the previous marks of A6Ms which were not even in serial production in the summer of 1940 - Apart from that I see no issues with it!


And that! ;)
 
Apart from learning how to build the A6M5c from the experience gained from the building of and the operational experience of all the previous marks of A6Ms which were not even in serial production in the summer of 1940 - Apart from that I see no issues with it!

It's not rocket science to add .3mm of skin thickness to get what the German companies were using as normal, or the number of rivets, or to put 6mm armor plate behind the seat
 
Other than weapon availability, there was nothing done to the 1943 A6M5c that couldn't have been done in 1940.

No engine.
In 1940, Sakae 11 was making 950 CV at 4200m, while Sakae of late 1941/early 1942 was at 980 HP at 6000m, 1100+ CV at low altitudes. Engine installation on later Zeroes was also much better than on early types, individual exhausts vs. collecting pipe, providing better exhaust thrust.
 
It's not rocket science to add .3mm of skin thickness to get what the German companies were using as normal, or the number of rivets, or to put 6mm armor plate behind the seat

On the Engine they had in 1940? It's all extra weight - plus you'll need to add a radio I guess? Going to be an asthmatic dog at Angels 20 where the action is happening

It would have been a 'Boulton Paul Defiant' style one trick pony in a Battle Of Britain type environment.
 
On the Engine they had in 1940? It's all extra weight - plus you'll need to add a radio I guess? Going to be an asthmatic dog at Angels 20 where the action is happening

It would have been a 'Boulton Paul Defiant' style one trick pony in a Battle Of Britain type environment.

Specification of A6M2 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 21:

Performance: Maximum speed 331 mph at 14,930 feet. Cruising speed 207 mph. Initial climb rate 4517 feet per minute. Climb to 19,685 feet in 7 minutes 27 seconds, 2642 feet per minute Service ceiling 32,810 feet.
Weights: 3704 pounds empty, 5313 pounds loaded, 6164 pounds maximum.

The A6M5a with the structure upgrades was 4167 pounds empty, 6047 pounds loaded, still a ton lighter than the Spitfire MkII
NK1F Sakae 21, rated at 1130 hp for takeoff, 1100 hp at 9350 feet, 980 hp at 19,685 feet.

Performance: Maximum speed 348 mph at 19,685 feet. Cruising speed 230 mph. Climb to 19.685 feet in 7 minutes 1 second. The improvement in the 1943 blower section was somewhat offset by the lower fuel quality

Radios were pulled by some crews for even lighter weight. That won't be happening with the Zero in German service, they understood the advantages of communications better than the IJN

Aeroplane Spitfire Mark II No. P.7280
Engines 1090/1135 Rated B.H.P at Rated Altitude 13,500 ft.

1140 Maximum B.H.P. at Rated Altitude 14,750 ft.

Weight light 4541

Flying weight on trials 6172 lb.

Top Speed M.P.H.
351

Time To Climb to 20,000
7.0 Minutes

Rate of Climb to 20,000

2175 Ft./Min.


TL;DR

A heavier, better built Zero was still going to be just as dangerous, but 'only' 1300 mile range. They wouldn't be able to fly over the Faroes any longer.
 

DougM

Donor
It is not impossible to have pretty much any plane from 1945/46 in 1940. We are looking at pretty much the same technology just different designs. Even the Jets were not technology impossible. If someone walked in with the design specs for the P51D in 1939 then the COULD be flying in 1940. It is not like a modern F22 with fly by wire and composit material and such. Most of the change from 1940 to 1945 was incremental. Usually based on things learnt during the war.
So it is impossible (in our timeline) because where did these lessons come from?
But that is not my problem with this. My problem is. If you are giving one side a fighter from 5 years in the future why not give the other sude its fighter from 5 years in the future.
Otherwise we may as well go totally rediculus and say that the US has Saber Jets.
Or go back to WW1 and give the US Apache Hilocopters.

It is not like the design for these 1945 fighters was sitting around and the country chose not to build them. Asking what if the US Navy built more (or less) Alaska’s is an understandable question as the ship existed and could be built or not. And it is fine to speculate what if Japan gave its design to its Allie because the planes existed in 1940 but the 1945 version did not exist in 1940. So if you want to assume that somehow one side managed to advance its design 5 years then it is reasonable to assume the other side did also.
 
It is not impossible to have pretty much any plane from 1945/46 in 1940. We are looking at pretty much the same technology just different designs. Even the Jets were not technology impossible. If someone walked in with the design specs for the P51D in 1939 then the COULD be flying in 1940.

Having design specs is one thing. Having actual hardware available a year after the specs are received, especially engines, is a deal breaker.

...
But that is not my problem with this. My problem is. If you are giving one side a fighter from 5 years in the future why not give the other sude its fighter from 5 years in the future.
...
...
So if you want to assume that somehow one side managed to advance its design 5 years then it is reasonable to assume the other side did also.

Agreed pretty much.
 
One of those Zero's big flaws which hurt Japan big at Midway was it small ammo load.
I don't recall the ammo supply of the A6M2's being a factor at midway, unless you are talking about the cap fighters being unable to land and reload during the ongoing, drawn out airstrikes from all three USN carrier air wings and multiple, uncoordinated strikes by midway based aircraft? That was a long morning, and being denied the ability to land upon your carrier because of ongoing incoming airstrikes will not apply to A6M2's in the BoB. In other words, there is nothing the RAF is going to be doing that forces the LW Zero's to stay in the fight after they expend their ammunition, so...

The Zero didn't have the ammunition loadout to do long-range escort over enemy territory.
2 things here, first, that isn't the case, look up historical uses for confirmation, and second, and more importantly, that isn't their posited mission here!

The zeros tangle with British fighters over Dover and fly to Scotland when they have to face more British fighters when they are low on ammunition.
And just why, I have to ask, are they going to do that!?!? Can you site a post where the notional LW A6M2's are supposed to do such a thing in the space of a single sortie? I don't recall such a post, but I suppose such a thing could have snuck in...

And face more British fighters on the return trip when they are out of ammunition.
As above, this makes no sense to me, are we supposed to think that the A6M2's are going to be based in Belgium, raid SE England, battle their way up the length of the home isles all the way to Scotland, and then they turn around and flyback down the length of the home isles, and proceed back to Belgium?!?! Even if a sortie were to be posited to take off from Belgium to attack Scotland, why would they not fly back to Norway instead? For that matter, unless the LW is going after the RN, what are they even doing up north in the first place. The risk to the LW bombers is the RAF FC aircraft operating in SE England, and until the LW wins this battle, decisively, then there is no other battle as important.

Staggering flights would allow aircraft with all ammunition loans to take the point but this would surrender the numerical advantage to the British.
But as pointed out, not needed if they are concentrating on extermination of fighters over SE England.
 
Yeah the later Zero was better. But you are talking about a late war aircraft being available in the very early part of the war. I hope it would be able to kick butt and take names. But it is definitely ASB. I mean if your giving Germany a late model war plane in 1940 then you need to Give England a late war plane.
Most of this thread is not focused upon the A6M5, but the historically available Jan 1940 A6M2.
 
Having design specs is one thing. Having actual hardware available a year after the specs are received, especially engines, is a deal
NAA went from Contract to first flight with the NA-73X in 149 days.

Buick did take a year from Contract to acceptance for the first P&W R-1830, but that including building a brand new $41M USD factory at Melrose Park
 
NAA went from Contract to first flight with the NA-73X in 149 days.

Buick did take a year from Contract to acceptance for the first P&W R-1830, but that including building a brand new $41M USD factory at Melrose Park

Yes, NAA was quick on the ball with NAA-73. However - the V-1710 was there to power the NA-73X, while there is no 2-stage 2-speed supercharged Merlin before late 1941 we need for P-51D or at least B.
Buick did not do any development of R-1830, we can recall that it took 4-5 years for engines to move from conceptual stage into the stage of having reliable engines for service, with required power levels.
 
Most of this thread is not focused upon the A6M5, but the historically available Jan 1940 A6M2.
In all likelihood if you got the Luftwaffe to do this adopting of a foreign fighter, the first example would probably be closer to the A6M5 as far as structure, since that would be closer to regular German manufacturing for what they considered 'lightly built' vs what the IJN thought.

It would still have the rough German equivalent in the 20mm being the FF, and MG 17 cowl guns, plus German Radio and gunsights, that were far better than the IJN gear.

More rivets and thicker metal skins does not take a long time to change.
 
Top