Luftwaffe Zeros?

How would the Zero's brittle and corrosion-prone duralumin skin survive in the Russian climate? This light-weight alloy, along with the omission of armour and self-sealing fuel tanks was an essential component of the Zero's design.
I did a little google, and it could just be that only the wing spar was made of ESD, the dreaded Extra Super Duralumin, for a weight savings of 30kg. The material is more ductile than other allies, and embrittlement is a result of corrosion, which is ameliorated by coating the material in lacquer. Examination of crashed Zeroes led to a chemical analysis of the alloy, leading to development of 75S Alloy, which saved the B-29 180 kg. It's a small world, because Hiroshima was a big aluminum alloy production center. Not surprising, much information is lost. The DH Comet used the alloy, as did the Boeing 707. It has been further developed since then, but you can still buy a fishing reel made from ESD.
 
Aircooled engines are easier to deal with, than oil for warmups.
I don't understand. Than what? Don't non-aircooled engines have oil?

Are you suggesting that inline engines are harder to start-up in cold weather? An inverted V-engine on the Bf-109 and the later FW-190D has a dry sump oil tank.

Oil%2Bsystem.jpg

http://luftwaffelovers.blogspot.ca/2016/04/focke-wulf-fw190-dora-some-facts.html

Oil System
A 55-lt circular oil tank is located in the nose, protected by an armored ring. The oil cooler is also protected by the ring.

Were radial engines dry sump as well? The benefit of dry sump lubrication is that unlike cranking an engine to get frozen oil to move in the sump, you simply needed to heat up the tank to get your oil flowing prior to start-up (same as I do with my 1969 Triumph twin on a cold day, where I attach a magnetic heater to the external oil tank)

51L3yodg%2BjL._SX300_.jpg
 
Warming the oil alone won't help, you have all that glycol coolant. 2nd, little generators were rare for that.
There's a reason a lot of Panzer crews ended up burning wood under their tanks to try to keep the oil and glycol above freezing.

Last, the Japanese did operate aircraft at Kiska in the Aleutian Islands. Hardly a tropical paradise.
 
The air cooled ww2 engine needs a piece of kit to warm it up, unlike the liquid cooled engine. The Soviets operated P-40s, Hurricanes and other aircraft with liquid cooled engines in the Russian far north, so did the Germans ad Finns.
 
The air cooled ww2 engine needs a piece of kit to warm it up, unlike the liquid cooled engine. The Soviets operated P-40s, Hurricanes and other aircraft with liquid cooled engines in the Russian far north, so did the Germans ad Finns.
That's where I was going with the above, thanks.
 
There's a reason a lot of Panzer crews ended up burning wood under their tanks to try to keep the oil and glycol above freezing.
Really? A lot of German tank crews lit live fires under their tanks? Every tankers' fear is fire. Gylcol doesn't freeze until -59'C. I think they're fine on that score, even if they partially dilute it with water. Now, their engine oil, that may be a bigger problem, causing glue-like mass in the engine sumps that prevent engine turn-over. But that's got nothing to do with the coolant.

But I think I'm tapping out here, we're getting to much into a pingpong match. Cheers.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
So I think the general sense of the thread is that the reason the Germans wouldn't get a great deal of use out of the Zero is that it's:

1) Very badly armoured.
2) Not well armed.
3) Good only at low speeds.
4) Good mainly because of the above factors.
5) Too late to join in the Battle of Britain anyway.

So if they were used in the BoB, they'd be able to provide long range fighter escort but would be hideously vulnerable to damage and take heavier casualties than the stuka - hence would be a wasting asset (one in small numbers to begin with) - and if they were uparmoured to fix that problem their performance advantages would evaporate.
 
At most, that and other changes get you into A Better Show.
Agreed. If the Germans had recognized the need for a longer range capability for the Bf-109 during its design, the tanks (along with the Bf-109G, with its greater internal fuel vs the Bf-109E) would have been ready for the BoB, making the fragile A6M unnecessary.

The dual tank option is even better, likely giving well over 2,000 km range, for more than six hours endurance, including combat time.

Bf109G4R-3_zps5ca7c73e.jpg


I wonder the the aircraft could takeoff with all THREE drop tanks, like this P-40 below.

P40N+Hollandia+3+drop-tanks+67+RITA+8+FS.jpg


With the G's greater internal fuel, three drop tanks, the right prop and engine settings our Bf-109G could likely fly from Calais to John o' Groats and back with fuel to spare.
 
Last edited:
Really? A lot of German tank crews lit live fires under their tanks?

Couldn't find a photo of a Panzer crew doing it but here's a German squaddie trying to keep his truck going (either that or he's going to try and put a dodgy kit insurance claim in to pay for his next leave)

b536923bd52851d1c8c0bd55597d3bb6.jpg
 
So I think the general sense of the thread is that the reason the Germans wouldn't get a great deal of use out of the Zero is that it's:

1) Very badly armoured.
2) Not well armed.
3) Good only at low speeds.
4) Good mainly because of the above factors.
5) Too late to join in the Battle of Britain anyway.

So if they were used in the BoB, they'd be able to provide long range fighter escort but would be hideously vulnerable to damage and take heavier casualties than the stuka - hence would be a wasting asset (one in small numbers to begin with) - and if they were uparmoured to fix that problem their performance advantages would evaporate.

Other than #5, that also applied to the Curtiss Hawk 75 that the Armée de l'Air flew during the Battle of France.

Was their top scoring aircraft type, despite being armed worse than the Zero, shared in being unarmored and no self-sealing tanks, and was even slower in top speed and shared in having a one stage supercharger, and less maneuverable, and less range. The advantages of the Hawk was in being more durable and all being radio equipped.
Messerschmidt drivers kept trying to dogfight, and got chewed most every time, the 'Four Finger' Formation did not save them any more than the older pair Formation.

Compare the loss win rates, the Hawk Drivers did far better than the 109
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Oh, its unlikely of course, being at least three PoDs, Nazis deciding that a lightweight fighter was desirable, then getting it started in time for 1940, and using the Zero as inspiration.

Just the M2 and M5c are good examples what could be done. There was no reason the Zero couldn't have had armor and Self-sealing tanks in 1940, other than the IJN being completely wedded to the idea of dogfighting as the be-all, end-all.

Range. I had a book written by some of the people involved in building the Zero. The Pacific was huge, created a need for longer range aircraft. Many of the islands are far apart, so every 100 miles extra range helps a lot. Enemy airfields are few. Even locations for potential enemy airfields are limited. There aircraft in the theater were often second class (old) and the pilots were often not the elite of their nations. Then you have Nationalist Air Force of 1939. Also not very good if it existed. So they build an airplane built for a specific need. An unusual combination of needs. And it worked well. The problem is that by late 1942, there should have been another generation of airplanes arriving, but the Japanese had no equivalent of the hurricane.

We get the same type of issues criticizing the Luftwaffe. It was built to break France, and it did a great job of doing that. It was not built to break the UK in a air war, and if failed at that. And this can apply to almost any weapon system ever built. A CVE will suck if used as a CV. A battleship can't do a subs job, and vice versa.
 
Agreed. If the Germans had recognized the need for a longer range capability for the Bf-109 during its design, the tanks (along with the Bf-109G, with its greater internal fuel vs the Bf-109E) would have been ready for the BoB, making the fragile A6M unnecessary.

The dual tank option is even better, likely giving well over 2,000 km range, for more than six hours endurance, including combat time.

Bf109G4R-3_zps5ca7c73e.jpg


I wonder the the aircraft could takeoff with all THREE drop tanks, like this P-40 below.

P40N+Hollandia+3+drop-tanks+67+RITA+8+FS.jpg


With the G's greater internal fuel, three drop tanks, the right prop and engine settings our Bf-109G could likely fly from Calais to John o' Groats and back with fuel to spare.

Isnt it a problem to go more than half-way into a combat mission based on the drop tanks?
 
Messerschmidt drivers kept trying to dogfight, and got chewed most every time, the 'Four Finger' Formation did not save them any more than the older pair Formation.

Compare the loss win rates, the Hawk Drivers did far better than the 109
The Messerschmitt pilots flew in a schwarm or four or a rotte of two, rather than the old kette of three. Nobody knew how to spell schwarm, so they called it finger four, replacing the vic of three. If it wasn't a great improvement, it wouldn't have been adopted by every other air force, and the rotte could be adapted easily into the loose deuce, enabling the Thatch Weave, and so on.
Comparing win-loss rates seems pointless. The French Hawks had great success when they found a squadron of Stukas plying their trade, and duly smote every hun. However, they did not win the battle of France. One purpose of fighters is to achieve air superiority, denying the battlefield to enemy aircraft, and allowing allied aircraft some freedom of operation. The 109s did so, largely, and the Hawks did not. Germans getting chewed seems slightly hyperbolic to me. Besides, dogfighting was highly over-rated, versus your basic bounce. Nonetheless, those Germans who were to become known as experten had developed evasive manoeuvers, or tricks, which served the purpose.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Messerschmitt pilots flew in a schwarm or four or a rotte of two, rather than the old kette of three. Nobody knew how to spell schwarm, so they called it finger four, replacing the vic of three. If it wasn't a great improvement, it wouldn't have been adopted by every other air force, and the rotte could be adapted easily into the loose deuce, enabling the Thatch Weave, and so on.
Comparing win-loss rates seems pointless. The French Hawks had great success when they found a squadron of Stukas plying their trade, and duly smote every hun. However, they did not win the battle of France. One purpose of fighters is to achieve air superiority, denying the battlefield to enemy aircraft, and allowing allied aircraft some freedom of operation. The 109s did so, largely, and the Hawks did not. Germans getting chewed seems slightly hyperbolic to me. Besides, dogfighting was highly over-rated, versus your basic bounce. Nonetheless, those Germans who were to become known as experten had developed evasive manoeuvers, or tricks, which served the purpose.

Agreed. A friend who was an F-16 pilot told me that surprise is what won air battles. Often one would die before they knew the fight was happening, and this had been true for every major air war going back to WW1. It is much more a game of sneak up on the bastard and kill him, than an air duel of dogfighting.
 
"If it is a fair fight, that means you've done something wrong"
There is also the, supposedly made in Finland' observation: Brewster Buffalo was the gentleman's aircraft, while Bf 109 was a killing machine.
 
Other than #5, that also applied to the Curtiss Hawk 75 that the Armée de l'Air flew during the Battle of France.

Was their top scoring aircraft type, despite being armed worse than the Zero, shared in being unarmored and no self-sealing tanks, and was even slower in top speed and shared in having a one stage supercharger, and less maneuverable, and less range. The advantages of the Hawk was in being more durable and all being radio equipped.
Messerschmidt drivers kept trying to dogfight, and got chewed most every time, the 'Four Finger' Formation did not save them any more than the older pair Formation.

Compare the loss win rates, the Hawk Drivers did far better than the 109

Been curious about this for some years. You have some sources to recommend on the Hawk in the BoF, or can provide more data?
 
Top