WI No A6M Zero fighter?

What if instead of focusing only maneuverability at all costs the japanese built their naval and army fighters like European designs? High speed, heavy armament, armored and self sealing fuel tanks, either liquid cooled or radial engined.

How much changes?
What difficulties will the allies have with these Japanese fighters?
What will the allies make to counter these fighters?
 
The zero was the right design for Japan in the beginning because it made the best possible use of the very weak engine (even as light as it was, it was slow), but it was the wrong plane for the defensive stages of the war, in which range was less relevant and survivability and firepower were what was needed. Yes, that long range was really important and a winning design for quick offense but they needed something with good survivability and good performance to back it up. The A7M as envisaged was what they really needed. It was a great design that should have run with the hellcat and maybe the corsair, but those darn engine issues got in the way.
 
Last edited:
The zero was the right design for Japan in the beginning because it made the best possible use of the very weak engine (even as light as it was, it was slow), but it was the wrong plane for the defensive stages of the war, in which range was less relevant and survivability and firepower were what was needed. Yes, that long range was really important and a winning design for quick offense but they needed something with good survivability and good performance to back it up. The A7M as envisaged was what they really needed. It was a great design that should have run with the hellcat and maybe the corsair, but those darn engine issues got in the way.

The A7M eh? It seems that they came too late to do anything let alone kill the enemy. It often seems that there was a beneficial (for the allies) conspiracy that the axis powers created very good aircraft almost or too late for them to do anything worthwhile with said aircraft that should have come out much earlier but were crippled by politics and what not.
 
The A7M eh? It seems that they came too late to do anything let alone kill the enemy. It often seems that there was a beneficial (for the allies) conspiracy that the axis powers created very good aircraft almost or too late for them to do anything worthwhile with said aircraft that should have come out much earlier but were crippled by politics and what not.
Yes, and the Japanese often made their most competent aircraft almost by accident rather than by directive.
 
Yes, and the Japanese often made their most competent aircraft almost by accident rather than by directive.

Even the ki-61 came when Japan was on the defensive. It was hampered by teething problems, substandard maintenance and finally the coup de grace the factory making the engine destroyed.
 
Even the ki-61 came when Japan was on the defensive. It was hampered by teething problems, substandard maintenance and finally the coup de grace the factory making the engine destroyed.
It should have been built with a radial in the first place. It was not the time to experiment with water cooled engines.
 
Yes, and the Japanese often made their most competent aircraft almost by accident rather than by directive.
There is a reason why nations like the UK and US ruled the world. They were consistently solid across a wide variety of abilities (rule of law, industrial standards), not just having a few one trick ponies.
 
There is a reason why nations like the UK and US ruled the world. They were consistently solid across a wide variety of abilities (rule of law, industrial standards), not just having a few one trick ponies.
Oh, yes, the fact that they had much more established, developed economies with huge and extremely significant head starts in all industries, continent-spanning land holdings, imperial dominions and various other major factors couldn't have had anything to do with it.
 
There is a reason why nations like the UK and US ruled the world. They were consistently solid across a wide variety of abilities (rule of law, industrial standards), not just having a few one trick ponies.

That and US and Britain sent their veteran pilots back to mentor the new generation of pilots whereas the Japanese didn't...
 
There would be problems a European style design would be bigger than a zero and take up more space in the carrier's hangar deck meaning fewer fighters for Japanese aircraft carriers. That's a big problem when you are seriously outnumbered to begin with.
It would probably also not be as fuel efficient as the zero, that would be a serious problem oil starved Japan. The shortage of fuel is what kept the Yamamato in port most of the time.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
I'd argue that the lack of the A6M is actually incredibly beneficial for the Japanese (I'm interpreting this to mean they don't simply navalize the Ki-43, which given the incredibly low landing speed with those fowler flaps would have been relatively doable).

While many have pointed out that the A6M was instrumental in their early offensives, it horrifically hamstrung them later in the war.

The navy was politically powerful, but lacked a replacement fighter to load onto their new carriers they kept trying to build. This tied the Japanese aircraft industry's leg to this crap fighter that had horrible characteristics for fighting a defensive war.

What Japan needed was Ki-44's, Ki-84's, even Ki-61's were better suited for the war despite their detriments.

All of them had excellent diving characteristics (with exception of the Ki-84 to an extent, I'm given to understand the horizontal stabilizers could be compromised at as low as 450mph IAS), good rates of climb through wide altitude bands, excellent rates of roll, good acceleration, and importantly kept responsive controls throughout their flight envelopes.

In other words, they posses the characteristics of being able to quickly build energy through climb and acceleration. They have the ability to convert large quantities of potential energy to kinetic energy through diving. They would retain energy well due to their (relative to the A6M) high top speed, resulting in less power deficit for any given speed above Vmax, as well as relatively low induced drag on the control surfaces. And most importantly, they have the ability to take advantage of all of these previous attributes due to their excellent control response at high speeds.


Why is this important you ask? Well, absent the A6M, it's possible these projects will get more money thrown their way, resulting in earlier deployments. Not to mention prioritization after their combat records begin to speak for themselves.

Additionally, these are the very attributes you should seek when forced to engage a numerically superior enemy, as well as a much better match for the US design philosophy of fighters.

Higher losses for US aircraft lengthens their turn around time between campaigns, especially where more specialized carrier pilots are suffering the brunt of the losses.


And crucially, I believe the stupidly low wingloading requirements will be dropped, or raised on later fighter designs, giving engineers less difficult design constraints, leading to improved performance on 1944 and 45 aircraft designs.


It won't win them the war. But if managed correctly could lead to overall greater US casualties.
 
From what read there was one account of zero's wings folding up as it tried to pull up from a dive.

The zero was good for the 39 to late 41 but after that an entirely new fighter was needed.
 
There would be problems a European style design would be bigger than a zero and take up more space in the carrier's hangar deck meaning fewer fighters for Japanese aircraft carriers. That's a big problem when you are seriously outnumbered to begin with.
It would probably also not be as fuel efficient as the zero, that would be a serious problem oil starved Japan. The shortage of fuel is what kept the Yamamato in port most of the time.

Wasn't the Zeros folding wing not as good as say the F4F-4 and British folding wing designs? So in fact it took up more room as only the wing tips folded.

Mitsubishi_A62M_Zero_USAF.jpg


Comparison_of_F4F_Wildcats_with_and_without_folded_wings_c1942.jpg
 
Really the Zero was a very competitive fighter when designed and built . It had shortcomings but then again so did all carrier fighters until the Corsair and Hellcat , even then the Hellcat was not as good as it is made out to be . However the Zero was a far better carrier fighter then any of the Seafire's up until the Mark XVII and this was a very late development . If they had no Zero they would have still ended up with a similar aircraft due to the design requirements . It is interesting to see that a similar requirement by the Air Ministry nearly got the F5/34 into production . It would have made a fantastic early war carrier fighter .
 
I don't see hardware making as much a difference. Give the Japanese Corsairs and Thunderbolts in 1943 and they will still lose the war.

Tactically, they were wedded to the two-wing man formation, a three-fighter element. The USN used one, a lead and a wingman. In a flight of four, there was a flight leader, his wingman, an element leader and his wingman. You can imagine the trouble a wingman had staying with a maneuvering lead, now imagine TWO trying to do the same.

Also, the Japanese were dedicated to maneuver, whereas the USN was training pilots in defection shooting. Not that this is a criticism of the Japanese; nearly every other air force in the world was doing the same. Even Dick Bong, US leading ace with 40 kills, said he was a terrible shot. But he was a great pilot, and could get his plane to positions where it couldn't miss. Outside the USN, the most famous practitioner of deflection shooting was George Beurling. And it got him shipped off to Malta; when he was in the UK, he was constantly claiming Germans shot down, but when his gun camera footage was developed it showed him only shooting at empty air. George was a hunter, BTW, so he understood leading a target, shooting where the target will be when the bullets arrive, not shooting where the target is, because the bullets will miss.

Finally, the Japanese pilot training program wasn't able to scale-up like the USN's was. And to Scout's point, the Japanese rarely had the chance to learn from veterans.

My thoughts,
 
It was a great design that should have run with the hellcat and maybe the corsair, but those darn engine issues got in the way.

But they did: the 1500hp Mitsubishi Kasei, available in 1939 to design with a fighter
A bit bigger in diameter, a bit heavier than what was in the Zero, but lighter than the R-2600
 
Top