WI No A6M Zero fighter?

If we replace the Zero with a different contemporary design that has similar combat capability but a very different design approach, we can then discuss weather it would change much.
Take for example the D520.

Had the IJN been using the D520 in its navalized form, the superior training of IJN pilots would still allow them to overcome allied air strength in all the initial campaigns. Having used it in China, they would have developed tactics to suit their fighter and woul probably score the same massive kill/loss rates against allied fighters. Thelack of range would not have been a decisive facto. It would force the carriers to get a bit closer to Pearl, for example, but that wouldn't change OTL events.

The main difference would come in the Solomons campaign were the lack of range of the D520 would mean there would be no long range missions. This would reduce pressure on the US forces, but also reduce IJN fighter losses.

So as along as they have a decent fighter, their superior training will give them the same six months of superiority.

I've looked at the French flight line for aircraft that they could have used for aircraft carrier service if they had been able to launch outfit and commission the two through deck cruisers Joffre and Painlevé they intended to build.

It is scarce pickings.

a. Dewoitine D.372 biplane fighter
b. Levasseur PL.10 biplane scout/recon/observer aircraft
c. Levasseur PL.7 biplane bomber

Of the land based offerings that are available circa 1940, that could be possibly navalized, because of the ruggedness needed in the airframe and the simplicity to maintain and resistance to salt water necessary, again the pickings are slim.

d. Morane Saulnier MN 406 with a more powerful engine that boosts it into a competitive position, possibly by using a Hispano Suiza HS 12Y-31 or later model engine. It would be very much like a Grumman Wildcat in performance if not in sturdiness and survivability. One advantage it would have is the 20 mm Hispano Suiza HS 404 cannon.

e. Optimized as a dive bomber... Loire-Nieuport LN.401 which was purpose designed. My complaint against this aircraft is that it can only dive shallow as its tail control is very suspect as it goes in a steep 60 degree or greater dive. It probably is better as a scout recon bird. It could in a pinch be used as a backup fighter like the Douglas Dauntless was used in USN service.

f. There is no replacement for the Levasseur PL.7. The best candidate, the MB 151 would need too much reworking and the only other suitable bird, the Bloch MB-480 is a twin engine aircraft too large to embark as a deck landing aircraft on any proposed French construction. It would fit an Akagi however.
 
I've looked at the French flight line for aircraft that they could have used for aircraft carrier service if they had been able to launch outfit and commission the two through deck cruisers Joffre and Painlevé they intended to build.

It is scarce pickings.

a. Dewoitine D.372 biplane fighter
b. Levasseur PL.10 biplane scout/recon/observer aircraft
c. Levasseur PL.7 biplane bomber

Of the land based offerings that are available circa 1940, that could be possibly navalized, because of the ruggedness needed in the airframe and the simplicity to maintain and resistance to salt water necessary, again the pickings are slim.

d. Morane Saulnier MN 406 with a more powerful engine that boosts it into a competitive position, possibly by using a Hispano Suiza HS 12Y-31 or later model engine. It would be very much like a Grumman Wildcat in performance if not in sturdiness and survivability. One advantage it would have is the 20 mm Hispano Suiza HS 404 cannon.

e. Optimized as a dive bomber... Loire-Nieuport LN.401 which was purpose designed. My complaint against this aircraft is that it can only dive shallow as its tail control is very suspect as it goes in a steep 60 degree or greater dive. It probably is better as a scout recon bird. It could in a pinch be used as a backup fighter like the Douglas Dauntless was used in USN service.

f. There is no replacement for the Levasseur PL.7. The best candidate, the MB 151 would need too much reworking and the only other suitable bird, the Bloch MB-480 is a twin engine aircraft too large to embark as a deck landing aircraft on any proposed French construction. It would fit an Akagi however.
I only used the D520 because it was comparable to the zero in fighting capabilities,but with a very different mix of qualities and flaws. I wasn't really considering it as an ATL IJN aircraft.
That said, there was a projected navalized version of the D520, but by 1940 the French navy was more or less set in a "Buy american" path. They ordered Vought Vindicators and Wildcats and it's likely that their new carriers, if commissioned, would have ended up with all US made airgroups. They were working on twin engined naval carier borne torpedo bombers that would also perform recce missions but they wouldn't be ready in time and would probably prove to be an over complicated answer to a requirement that could be met by more practical US designs.
 
I only used the D520 because it was comparable to the zero in fighting capabilities,but with a very different mix of qualities and flaws. I wasn't really considering it as an ATL IJN aircraft.

It would be interesting to compare it against the German proposed naval fighter.

That said, there was a projected navalized version of the D520, but by 1940 the French navy was more or less set in a "Buy american" path. They ordered Vought Vindicators and Wildcats and it's likely that their new carriers, if commissioned, would have ended up with all US made airgroups. They were working on twin engined naval carier borne torpedo bombers that would also perform recce missions but they wouldn't be ready in time and would probably prove to be an over complicated answer to a requirement that could be met by more practical US designs.

I wonder if the twin engine type was the Bloch MB-480?

Anyone in the naval ministry who ordered a Vindicator dive bomber when the Dauntless was in the pipeline should have been stood against the wall.

Too bad the MS 406 was so badly underpowered. The Morane-Saulnier Mörkö (Finnish version rebuild) shows what a better engine could do for that air frame. I mean come on. The Klimov was a piece of junk knockoff of the Hispano Suiza 12Y series. Why did the AdA not insist on the 12Y 50 or 51?
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to compare it against the German proposed naval fighter.



I wonder if the twin engine type was the Bloch MB-480?

Anyone in the naval ministry who ordered a Vindicator dive bomber when the Dauntless was in the pipeline should have been stood against the wall.

Too bad the MS 406 was so badly underpowered. The Morane-Saulnier Mörkö (Finnish version rebuild) shows what a better engine could do for that air frame. I mean come on. The Klimov was a piece of junk knockoff of the Hispano Suiza 12Y series. Why did the AdA not insist on the 12Y 50 or 51?
The twin engined type being considered was the Dewoitine 750. It was a 3 seater that could be flow as a recce or TB. It had two 500HP engines, making it under powered, and it was a very complicated way to get a STB.
The French bought what they could get. The USN had first choice, and they had to pay extra for what we're basically substitute standard machines. For example they bough the Curtiss H-75 (P36) while the USAAF had moved on to the P40.
The MS 406 was a contemporary of the Bf 109B. When it was ordered th LW was using fighters with the 700HP Jumo 210 so a 860HP machine seemed good enough. The D520 and Bloch MB 152 should have replaced it in the frontline. The problem was that this fighteres development cycle was slow, while the Bf109 development cycle was very fast.
The MS 406, being man hours intensive to build, should have been no more than a interim fighter.
When the French captured an intact Bf109E in early 1940, they tested it against the Bloch and the D520, but didn't bother testing it against the MS406.
The French were working on more powerful engines, but neither the GR radials nor the HS in line proved reliable and in 1940 they were testing variants with US radials and Merlins of most of their aircraft. Bear in mind that even though the Soviets did develop more powerful version of their Klimov HS derived engines, they faced huge reliability issues.
On a final note, the Bf109T would have been a very good naval fighter when it was flying. The problem would have been when it was not. It would have been complicated to land and short ranged.
Interestingly, the French had the basis for a veru good CAG. The wheeled version of the LaTE 298 TB was one of the best TB around in 1940, the LN 401 was a decent DB, and a navalized MB155 could have fitted the carrier fighter role nicely.
 
Last edited:
The twin engined type being considered was the Dewoitine 750. It was a 3 seater that could be flow as a recce or TB. It had two 500HP engines, making it under powered, and it was a very complicated way to get a STB.

Here.

Comments; tail control, wing planform wrong, maintenance nightmare and underpowered. Lofting ability is good, however.

The French bought what they could get. The USN had first choice, and they had to pay extra for what were basically substitute standard machines. For example they bought the Curtiss H-75 (P36) while the USAAF had moved on to the P40.
Regrettable.

The MS 406 was a contemporary of the Bf 109B. When it was ordered th LW was using fighters with the 700HP Jumo 210 so a 860HP machine seemed good enough. The D520 and Bloch MB 152 should have replaced it in the frontline. The problem was that this fighteres development cycle was slow, while the Bf109 development cycle was very fast.

Again regrettable.

The MS 406, being man hours intensive to build, should have been no more than a interim fighter.
There's an old saying in the midst of disaster; "it is in hand, it is available and one can tweak it, while we wait for the next thing to develop." That is why the Americans kept making P-39s and P-40s long and used the F4F after the expiration date on those aircraft was obvious.
When the French captured an intact Bf109E in early 1940, they tested it against the Bloch and the D520, but didn't bother testing it against the MS406.

See above. The parallel to the example I read is the belated (in Europe) testing of types in hand the Americans did when they came up against German armor in France 1944. It was not as if the Americans had not bumped into Tigers and very tough PZKW IVs earlier, but the crisis was at hand and they needed to know exactly what they faced and whether or not what they had could be tweaked or adapted to use against the German equipment. The same was done in late 1942-1943 to test American aircraft against German types encountered. The testing was all operational types to hand. Not a criticism at all, just a different way to look at the problem.

The French were working on more powerful engines, but neither the GR radials nor the HS in line proved reliable and in 1940 they were testing variants with US radials and Merlins of most of their aircraft. Bear in mind that even though the Soviets did develop more powerful version of their Klimov HS derived engines, they faced huge reliability issues.

That is understandable. The Curtiss cyclone radials the Americans used were somewhat problematic. These engines gave troubles still after a decade of intensive work.

On a final note, the Bf109T would have been a very good naval fighter when it was flying. The problem would have been when it was not. It would have been complicated to land and short ranged.

The BF109T has horrible roll and yaw characteristics, the landing profile is worthless as a carrier aircraft, and I would have sphincter issues during a trap when that tail hook grabs and the aft end of the fighter tears off. Willy Messerschmidt was not the airplane designer he thought he was.

Interestingly, the French had the basis for a very good CAG. The wheeled version of the LaTE 298 TB was one of the best TB around in 1940, the LN 401 was a decent DB, and a navalized MB155 could have fitted the carrier fighter role nicely.

LaTE 298 - folding wing problem, quite solvable and looks very competitive.

LN 401 - faulty dive brakes, air buffeting, tail control issues, but absolutely nothing insurmountable at all, certainly a far better design than the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver which was a pilot killer and a piece of absolute flying junk.

MB-155 - (BASED on op-eval) Some tail control issues. Control lockups during steep dives. Poor maneuverability compared to existing competitors. Nothing insurmountable though. Time was the problem. It would have been a rough parity match to the Wildcat.
 
Top