Beating the A6M Zero

[Feldgrün]

“Useless” is an overstatement, but for the Allies to overcome the Zero took some work.

Edited November 26 by Feldgrün

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Feldgrün said:

for the Allies to overcome the Zero took some work.

Well, it just took taking a 2000 hp engine where the Japanese had a 1000 hp engine. The rest of the issue ist for intellectuals and in gerneral people whose hide was not on the line.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

23 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Well, it just took taking a 2000 hp engine where the Japanese had a 1000 hp engine. The rest of the issue ist for intellectuals and in gerneral people whose hide was not on the line.

 

Japan developed the Homare engine (2000 hp) and N1K1-J Shidens, N1K2-J Shiden-Kais and Ki-84 Hayates were equipped with in the late years of the war (period 1943-1945). A pilot on board his Hellcat wasn't secure if a Hayate or a Shiden-Kai was in the nearabouts, nor the Jap could be safe if the guy in the Hellcat prooved to be a sharper pilot.

So the above concerns the 1942-1945 period. During the previous step in the war, from late 1939 to early 1942, the Zero was conceived to win the war quickly... at risk of a defeat for the country. Same as Germany. These countries knew they couldn't last in a long-running war so they developed the armament they needed. There was no mistake in doing that. There was no mistake in developing the Zero as it had been developed. If the Japanese choice had been to develop types equivalent to the Wildcat in 1939/1940, the war that Japan would had faced would have last one year, not 5 or 6, 'cause the Japanese strategists perfectly knew about Japan's delay in terms or metal-alloy technology and resources (natural raw materials). Since the 19th Century, wars depend on technology. This means that you do not only depend on having a better plane, or a better rifle, or a better tank. You depend on having good equipement in sufficient numbers. The stronger the industry and the more abundant the resources, the stronger the country. So, again, the Axis Powers needed a short war, but the events went differently.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Japan developed the Homare engine (2000 hp) and N1K1-J Shidens, N1K2-J Shiden-Kais and Ki-84 Hayates were equipped with in the late years of the war (period 1943-1945).

They did, but it is questionable how many of them would ever work at the same time. Japan was just not able to do reliable large scale production of 2000 hp class engines. When the Wright engine in a B-25 had 50 hours of service life until it was cheaper to throw it away and replace it, then the qualitly of a Double Wasp really shines.

I'd say it is questionable anyway that Japan could keep up with maintaining the 2000 hp class engines for all those aircraft, never mind producing fuel for them. The planes you mentioned were at best exotic encounters in the life of an average Allied pilots as opposed to the Zero, despite considerable numbers built. How many Zero aces are there? How many Shiden or Hayate aces are there? Where was that epic battle where those one thousand N1K's blunted Allied advances? By 1944, even when reached technical parity on paper, this was not nearly enough to make that new aircraft a similarly effective projector of force. Japan showed the world with Kidō Butai that any weapon system is more than the sum of its parts. And if all you have is parts...

Also, the relatively high production numbers of those "2nd gen fighters" I consider misleading, as Japan held most of them back on the mainland for the last great battle that never happened. Sadly enough, MacArthur just napalmed them after the war.

But the topic was overcoming the Zero, not Japans next-gen fighter. Regarding 2nd gen fighters, the Japanese in principle just stepped up to "2000 hp" as well to overcome Allied superiority, turning it into parity regarding plain aircraft performance.

31 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

There was no mistake in developing the Zero as it had been developed.

It is a fantastic aircraft and it sure maximises your possibilities if 1000 hp is all you have.

33 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Axis Powers needed a short war, but the events went differently.

It's amazing how people then and now think they get to choose what kind of war they'll have, huh?

But that's just the thing about authoritarism. It is functinally inefficient because as a bottom line, because it is nothing but the method of choice to enable stable rent seeking for the grifters in power, championing loyalty over merit. It is newer comperatively productive and the poverty of its people is a feature, nut a bug. Wealth would bring agency. You can't have that if you want to remain top dog.

This is why - then and now - these countries can only play their game such that the (more productive) opponents just folds their cards instead of manning up and play their hand.

Kantai Kessen is the essence of that approach. While the people back then certainly wouldn't put in the same rationale in it as I just did, but it is funtionally exactly that. Hitler resorted to scaremongering (whatever military he had, had to be useful for exactly that with all the consequences it brought along) which worked out great and gave him one country after another, until much to his surprise, the others wouldn't have it anymore. Hitler even said about himself that for his whole life, he only played Va banque. Poland was just the time where the others on the table unexpectedly called his cards. From then on, he had to make do with what he had at hand. And went bust.

The problem is, in authoritarism there is no domestic policy (who dares opening their mouths?), hence there can only be foreign policy instead. Only foreign conquest in one form or the other can legetimize and maintain the rule. And it counts on the other countries' dependency to normality and play along, when in fact normality has long gone.

 

In these historic discussions, we only discuss technicalities, when in fact on the large scale, they were (and still are!) a rather unimportant detail. Nobody ever based their ambitions on how fast their aircraft were.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Hubris leads to defeat.

The Imperial Japanese, and Nazi Germany both were victims of their own propaganda.   Neither had come up against near peer adversaries until the US and Britain spooled up their industrial capacity, dug in their heels and stood up against the axis.  A single weapons system here and there that was on par simply wasn't enough when the Allies flooded the skies with good aircraft and pilots, and filled the seas with numerically and technologically superior navies.

[Boom]

What I find absolutely astounding is that Japan achieved domination of the Pacific with just approximately 300 A6M's at the start of the war!

Other than Malaya (which was IJAAF area), the Zero featured in every Japanese offensive ie Pearl Harbour. Philippines, Dutch East Indies, various Pacific Islands and the Indian Ocean. It ability to fly long distances from both land and carrier based platforms - and dominate the air - was key to Japanese success.

It also illustrates just how poorly Japan really was prepared for a modern war.

[Gambit21]

22 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Well, it just took taking a 2000 hp engine where the Japanese had a 1000 hp engine.

That helped, it’s huge…but that’s also a bit of an oversimplification of the disparities in design philosophy. 
The way Japan went about training pilots, resulting in a severe shortfall later in the war was as much or more to blame. 
Well trained Zero pilots gave as good as they got, even later in the Solomons campaign - there were just not enough of them.

The A6M5 with an experienced pilot was a pushover neither for the Corsair nor the F6F-3.

Again though your point about engines is no small thing…also being able to leverage that power/maneuver at greater speed unlike the Zero etc.

 

 

 

Edited November 25 by Gambit21

[BlitzPig_EL]

The training issue is quite important.  The Japanese washed out trainees to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force.

[Trooper117]

15 hours ago, Boom said:

Other than Malaya (which was IJAAF area),

I was sure the Japanese Navy had input during the Malaya/Singapore campaign...

[Lusekofte]

Human recourses and access to vital metal together with industrial power out of reach for the enemy. That is the key. USSR had it USA had it. It equals a win. US produced well trained pilots all mass. They where familiar with employed tactics the day they arrived and knew the enemy’s pro and cons. 
USSR was not that particular but in the end they had a lot of experienced pilots too. And their adversary just was drained. Their ability to keep fighting to the end made the war last much longer than it had to. 

[Boom]

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I was sure the Japanese Navy had input during the Malaya/Singapore campaign...

True, it did. But on a very minor scale.

Initial A6M involvement was by the 'Yamada Unit' (a combination of one detached Chutai from each of the 3rd Ku and Tainan Ku, total 25 A6M's). It was based at  Soc Trang in Indochina. The role was to act as patrol escort for the Kota Bharu invasion force. 

On 26 December the Yamada Unit (still just two Chutai consisting of 19 A6M's and 5 C5M's) moved from Soc Trang to Kota Bharu. It commenced escort raids over Singapore from 12 January onwards, until the surrender of Singapore on 15 February. It flew 150 sorties, and average of just 4 per day. 

[ZachariasX]

22 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Again though your point about engines is no small thing…also being able to leverage that power/maneuver at greater speed unlike the Zero etc.

A slower plane with less turn rate and less climb rate will - all other things equal - given sufficiently more power outrun, outclimb and outturn the formerly higher performing aircraft. Simple as that.

Also it is easier to give away some of that performance to make the plane cheaper to build and easier to maintain and operate. All of which win you the war.

Design philosophies matter only if all parties involved are limited to the same indufficient power output. Only then it really matters, as it is the only way to make most of the little power you have for a specific task at hands. But it sure is relevant for the looks.

23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The A6M5 with an experienced pilot was a pushover neither for the Corsair nor the F6F-3.

Every plane that has guns which can destroy the enemy aircraft can be a lethal oponent. Sadly, the ones who needed the better pilots didn‘t cultivate those as a renewable asset.

Dependency on elite fighters is and has always been receipe for disaster, whether they might be the highest scoring combat aces or the dashing sons of plantation owners, it just doesn‘t work long term. But if you can make use of the common mob, you win.

It is hillarious to think that Japan happily ventured out doing carrier battles with two of the three items you need for that not being replacable: carriers and pilots. They could only build planes.

[Sobilak]

The "quality" of a given type of weaponry is demonstrated by its ability to be modified to improve performance and adapt to changes on the battlefield or to changes in the enemy (including tactics). We have, for example, the A6M and, on the other hand, the Spitfire and the Bf109. Both of the latter, thanks to modifications of engines, weapons and equipment, had a "quality" by the end of the war that enabled effective and equal combat against the enemy (even with new aircraft models). The A6M reached its maximum "ceiling" by the end of 1942, maybe first half 1943. In addition, the loss of experienced Japanese pilots, who could not be replaced by anyone comparable in terms of skills, meant that the advantage of the A6M from the beginning of the war began to quickly disappear.

[Gambit21]

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

A slower plane with less turn rate and less climb rate will - all other things equal - given sufficiently more power outrun, outclimb and outturn the formerly higher performing aircraft. Simple as that.

It's not really a simple as that because if you strapped an R2800 onto a Zero it would have massively better power to weight ratio than the Hellcat, and yet quickly lose it's ability to turn and just forget diving. The Zero is a unique beast.

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Also it is easier to give away some of that performance to make the plane cheaper to build and easier to maintain and operate. All of which win you the war.

That can contribute to helping win the war yes.

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Design philosophies matter only if all parties involved are limited to the same indufficient power output. Only then it really matters, as it is the only way to make most of the little power you have for a specific task at hands. But it sure is relevant for the looks.

Design philosophies always matter...the Pacific is the perfect illustration of this. To the Allies an aircraft was a gun platform, to the Japanese it was a samurai sword.

If you stop on the wrong place of a Zero wing, your foot will go through it. There's more to it than horsepower, and the Zero's power to weight ratio was actually quite good.

 

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Every plane that has guns which can destroy the enemy aircraft can be a lethal oponent.

Of course.

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Sadly, the ones who needed the better pilots didn‘t cultivate those as a renewable asset.

No they did not.:)

 

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Dependency on elite fighters is and has always been receipe for disaster, whether they might be the highest scoring combat aces or the dashing sons of plantation owners, it just doesn‘t work long term. But if you can make use of the common mob, you win.

It is hillarious to think that Japan happily ventured out doing carrier battles with two of the three items you need for that not being replacable: carriers and pilots. They could only build planes.

Hubris, and the plan was to bring the Allies to the bargaining table in 6 moths...it didn't work out that way. 

 

Edited November 27 by Gambit21

[ZachariasX]

Fully agree on your points

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

It's not really a simple as that because if you strapped an R2800 onto a Zero it would have massively better power to weight ratio than the Hellcat, and yet quickly lose it's ability to turn and just forget diving.

I fully agree on your points. Here, my example was a theoretical one. It would correspond more to just increasing MAP on the Wildcat (if that were posdible) such that it would have 2000 hp. Then it would reign supreme on the Zero. That is what I meant by saying „all other things being equal“.

@Holtzauge has made a simulation comparing the Zero with the P40 when you run the latter at 60 inches boost. It becomes rather competitive. (Personally, I find that these engines tend to die on you if you run them past 80% of their rated power already, but if life and material comes cheap…)

That aircraft designs have fundamental limitations - like the Zero ceasing to be reasonably controllable and shedding control surfaces already at speeds past 400 mph - puts indeed very practical limitations on what is otherwise simple physics.

This is why, when you get that much more performance in any metric there is (except stall speed), it is reasonable to cash in on that and exchange some of that for weight (making a larger aircraft that carries more weapons) and give up just so much for still outclassing your opponent. That us how you get a Hellcat.

Nobody cares how much superior your aircraft is as long as it is superior, carrying more weapons is what matters.

It is not easy getting out of that bracket and usually require a redesign of the whole airframe. Willy tricked us (and the RLM) by giving his 109 G and later models the same look as the E and F, when in fact they were considerably altered aircraft. The improved Zero, now with a more limited mission scope, looked more different than it actually was: The Raiden. Even though it shares the name and looks with the Thunderbolt, it is actually still a very light and delicate aircraft.

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Fully agree on your points

I fully agree on your points. Here, my example was a theoretical one. It would correspond more to just increasing MAP on the Wildcat (if that were posdible) such that it would have 2000 hp. Then it would reign supreme on the Zero. That is what I meant by saying „all other things being equal“.

@Holtzauge has made a simulation comparing the Zero with the P40 when you run the latter at 60 inches boost. It becomes rather competitive. (Personally, I find that these engines tend to die on you if you run them past 80% of their rated power already, but if life and material comes cheap…)

That aircraft designs have fundamental limitations - like the Zero ceasing to be reasonably controllable and shedding control surfaces already at speeds past 400 mph - puts indeed very practical limitations on what is otherwise simple physics.

This is why, when you get that much more performance in any metric there is (except stall speed), it is reasonable to cash in on that and exchange some of that for weight (making a larger aircraft that carries more weapons) and give up just so much for still outclassing your opponent. That us how you get a Hellcat.

Nobody cares how much superior your aircraft is as long as it is superior, carrying more weapons is what matters.

It is not easy getting out of that bracket and usually require a redesign of the whole airframe. Willy tricked us (and the RLM) by giving his 109 G and later models the same look as the E and F, when in fact they were considerably altered aircraft. The improved Zero, now with a more limited mission scope, looked more different than it actually was: The Raiden. Even though it shares the name and looks with the Thunderbolt, it is actually still a very light and delicate aircraft.

As I recall it, Horikoshi in his memoirs Eagles of Mitsubishi says that his firm actually had to think twice before even deciding to submit an entry to the IJN’s request for the “Prototype 12 carrier borne aircraft” which was later to evolve into the famous Zero. Further, as I understand it, the requirements set out by the IJN were so ambitious that other Japanese aircraft firms did not even bother to respond to the tender, simply because they thought that the demands were impossible to meet.

In his book, Horikoshi explains that the whole design was done centered around the only engine they had at hand, and that its low power output necessitated an extremely weight optimized design. So in order to meet the demands, they had to weight optimize every scrap of that plane and used labour intensive design practices (by choice) that meant that the aircraft was quite costly in terms of the man-hours it took to produce.

OTOH, this was the only way to meet the requirements, and resulted in a design where the wings were required to be more or less fixed to the fuselage, and such fitting as on the Bf 109 for example, making it possible to remove the wings for transport or servicing, were never even considered because of the weight penalty. And with the above in mind it’s then not so strange that the Zero lacked both armour and self-sealing fuel tanks, because all that costs weight and the design would with these added not have fulfilled the requirements.

And these extreme weight requirements in turn led to a design that had wing skinning with a thickness as low as 0.5 mm in some places, and although light, such a design will inevitably have to compromise with strength. However, as it was, they still did a remarkable job and the Zero was still reasonably strong in terms of absolute strength as in the pilots being able to pull g’s without the wings falling off. But they still had to contend with a low torsional stiffness in the wings as a result of this. This in turn led to a low aileron reversal speed and in an extension a very low Vne of around 650 km/h as I recall it.

However, this well engineered (with the original specification in mind!) and weight optimized design of course meant that the Zero was ill-suited for the ever increasing demands placed on it as the war progressed, in terms of higher power output engines, heavier armament, and ever increasing speeds. But no shadow should fall on Horikoshi for this, for that foresight should instead have been the IJN’s, not his, because had he in response to that original tender instead submitted a design that included margins, he would have lost to his competitors had they entered designs that were more in line with the Zero.

So in summary, everything on the original Zero’s design was done with a purpose, and I really recommend reading the book because it’s well written and with lots of technical details in it, and one’s respect for Horikoshi as a designer only increases as you read it. Mitsubishi did a remarkable job on the Zero, and had Horikoshi had the same high power output engines as was available western designers at the time, then I’m sure he would have come up with a just as good, if not even better design quite early in the war.

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

It is not easy getting out of that bracket and usually require a redesign of the whole airframe. Willy tricked us (and the RLM) by giving his 109 G and later models the same look as the E and F, when in fact they were considerably altered aircraft. 

Ha...that's what McDonnel Douglas pulled with the Superhornet.

 

 

[CPT Crunch]

Japan was always going to lose, they were a mess of divisions living on the edge of paranoia.  They barely controlled their Army's of mercenaries on the Chinese mainland and it was never apparent who actually controlled who.  They were cutting back room deals to secure their empire like with the Russians, don't believe it, than look at the shipping tonnage and numbers of Allied vessels, including American merchants allowed to slip completely unmolested into Vladivostok right through the heart of Imperial controlled shipping lanes all war long.  They dropped their original over all war strategy of a defensive perimeter in five seconds after Jimmy Doolittle gave them a harmless sucker punch, foolishly charging off to Midway for a major defeat, exactly opposite of their own written plan.  Had a Navy and Army that refused to talk with each other, let alone unit to unit among themselves.  Did completely stupid things like throw their entire air force covering the Philippines into the already lost Mariana Turkey shoot leaving the latter without Air power when it really mattered.  You can't win a war with idiots running a bravado show.