WI:Mitsubishi A7M Reppu 1943-44

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zeros and Oscars could already do that, out turn everything the USN and USAAFflew

Once you start adding in more guns,Armor and self sealing tanks, you needed a lot more engine to drag that larger wing (needed for extra weight of gear)around at speed.

Japanese had real trouble developing 1800HP+ radials

The Japanese had trouble developing and mass producing and sustaining in the field anything more than they already did because of inherent limitations in their industrial base (much like the Italians).

For all of the myth in popular history that the Zero was this uber-advanced design, it in fact highlights all of the limitations in Japan's ability to design and mass produce advanced (by 1942 standards) combat aircraft.

Disclaimer - all credit to the folks at Mitsubishi for doing what the did with the limited resources they had but do what they did they had to make some very difficult compromises.
 
If I recall, most of the experienced Japanese pilots were dead and gone not by the Phillipines Sea, but in the Solomons campaign, that was a meatgrinder for the IJN and IJA and they lost most of their experienced cadre's there. Everything else after that was far worse trained and by 1944 the training was terrible, by 1945 it was abysmal.

Yes, more advanced planes at Philippine Sea are not going to do much for them. Their corps of trained pilots had already been gutted. Yeah they would have lost fewer planes and imposed a higher cost on the US but in the end they still would have lost and they would not have been in much better shape for Leyte Gulf.
 
The Japanese sent a high-ranking officer to investigate the high losses in the Solomons. His plane was shot down.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Japanese sent a high-ranking officer to investigate the high losses in the Solomons. His plane was shot down.

In a case of rather dark comedy, I imagine him writing his final report as the plane dropped towards the sea. "Seems to be related to all the American aircraft everywhere."
 
Someone posted something similar recently on another thread. Picket was supposedly asked what caused the failure of his charge at Gettysburg. His supposed answer was along the line of "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
 
Someone posted something similar recently on another thread. Picket was supposedly asked what caused the failure of his charge at Gettysburg. His supposed answer was along the line of "a lot of Yankees"

Kind of like the classic response to the question:

"Why did you lose the game?"

"Well, because the other team scored more points than we did."
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Someone posted something similar recently on another thread. Picket was supposedly asked what caused the failure of his charge at Gettysburg. His supposed answer was along the line of "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
Yes, that's what it reminded me of.
 
If Japan still had carriers and well trained or experienced naval aviators in 1943-44, it would have made more sense to accelerate development of a shipboard version if the N1K Shiden-Kai. It was already in development and better than the Reppu anyway.
 
How about rather than introducing the A7M the Japanese switch the engine of the A6M earlier to the Kinsei that would make the A6M8 available in 1942-43 or have the Navy request a radial engine version of the Ki-61 and thus introduce the Ki-100 for carrier service?
 
Ironically they sacrificed the extra maneuverability, for additional protection, which was still insufficient, and did nothing to improve the aircraft's armament, which was, by 1943, woefully inadequate.
Agreed. Given the losses suffered, I can't really blame the designers for trying to increase survivalability as best they could, but it did hurt already marginal performance for marginal armor. I just like to correct the common misperception that Militarist Japan never used any plane armor or self-sealing fuel tanks out of some philosophical objection.

You raise a good point about armament, too. It is interesting to think about, when so much of the IJN air arm was based on striking hard as fast, on a strong first blow. A pair of 12.7mm machine guns might have been adequate in 1939, but not much later. The 7.7mm machine guns in the A6M were likely always all but useless, which is a problem when your cannon carry so few rounds. It is even more amazing when you remember that the Ki-43 was supposed to carry two 12.7mm guns, but due to supply shortages, many early war models actually carried only one, with the second replaced with a 7.7mm model. When I think about the poor bastards in Burma, assigned to try to take down B-24s in a Ki-43...

Late war fighters were usually designed with four 20mm cannon, if they were a new design, but by then it was too late.

If Japan still had carriers and well trained or experienced naval aviators in 1943-44, it would have made more sense to accelerate development of a shipboard version if the N1K Shiden-Kai. It was already in development and better than the Reppu anyway.
The A7M was really quite large. Would it have fit in the elevators of the existing carriers? I can't find information on it now, but I thought I read once that it couldn't be used on the 1941 carriers, and was intended to be flown from new, larger ones, or from land bases.
How about rather than introducing the A7M the Japanese switch the engine of the A6M earlier to the Kinsei that would make the A6M8 available in 1942-43 or have the Navy request a radial engine version of the Ki-61 and thus introduce the Ki-100 for carrier service?
How much effort would it take to navalize the Ki-61?
 
Last edited:
Going by the Sea Hurricane and Seafire conversion it should be relatively fast

Apparently there was a thread on the idea of a navalized Ki-61 back in the day. The overall consensus seems to be that poor forward visibility on landing and a short range were problems. The Ki-100 solves the second problem, but not the first.
Going from Wikipedia, part of the impetus for the development of the type was Militarist Japan receiving a copy of an FW-190, which showed how a wide radial engine could be mated to a narrow frame. Maybe a PoD could be for Japan to learn about the specifics of the FW-190 earlier? That would give the engineers more time to work on the conversion.
 
Apparently there was a thread on the idea of a navalized Ki-61 back in the day. The overall consensus seems to be that poor forward visibility on landing and a short range were problems. The Ki-100 solves the second problem, but not the first.
Going from Wikipedia, part of the impetus for the development of the type was Militarist Japan receiving a copy of an FW-190, which showed how a wide radial engine could be mated to a narrow frame. Maybe a PoD could be for Japan to learn about the specifics of the FW-190 earlier? That would give the engineers more time to work on the conversion.

The Ki-61 was also an absolute beast to maintain and the Japanese had a lot of trouble keeping them in commission. A lot of that had to do with the complex liquid cooled engine but there were probably other factors as well.

Overall the Ki-61 is a good example of how the Japanese aircraft industry was hard pressed to produce fighters more advanced than the Zero and Oscar.
 
Going from Wikipedia, part of the impetus for the development of the type was Militarist Japan receiving a copy of an FW-190, which showed how a wide radial engine could be mated to a narrow frame. Maybe a PoD could be for Japan to learn about the specifics of the FW-190 earlier? That would give the engineers more time to work on the conversion.

The Japanese received a copy of the FW-190A5 in 1943. It received the allied reporting name Fred. It might have given them impetus to drop the cowling config on the J2M Raidens and copy the 190's.
 
I agree that pilot training was never equal to the demands of wartime in Japan. They never were geared to a long war. This is perhaps the biggest problem. I like this site. The posts are thoughtful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top