Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR and BK:

Nice thinking.  I like the development line with FatR but really like the creation of an improved interceptor as outlined with BK.  Why don't you two hammer that out between you.  Everything must be reasonable and based on the 'history.'  I'm of the opinion that the Fleet goes with FatR deployment for Carrier-Based Air.  The land-based side needs the work and can see the envisioned 'interceptor.'

If you want, you can include the dedicated interceptor with the Kasei engine and 30mm guns, as proposed by bklooste after/in place of A6M5c. Then the player will have a meaningful choice between allowing the upgrade to the more well-rounded A6M8 or sticking with a heavily-armed bomber interceptor.

The historical basis of this is
1) The A6M3 planes with 30mm cannons were trialed at Rabaul if it shot down a B24 or B17 or 2 it probably wouild have been adopted.
2) The Kasei was in the Jack, were asssuming no jack so either the specification was given to the Zero team or the Jack was cancelled earlier in both cases the people who planned to use the Kasei were in the new Zero interceptor team. Im assuming however that they have a lot of trouble fitting it to the zero frame ( a lot more time than historical) but that does mean the Zero with Kasei engines come out in 44 instead of 45. And im adding the A6M4 as a reinforced zero with the Jack engine mainly to deliver the climb so needed for an interceptor. The A6M4 would be a mix between the Jack and the Zero.

Note i dont nec. like the 30mm due to low ammo but it fits the specification of an interceptor and was historically trialed quite early in A6M3 zeros ( they may have given up because the Jack was better at this roll but its pure speculation) .30mm wing gund would more pressure on upgrading the engine cowling guns to 12.7mm. Speaking of which with the Kasei these prob need to become wing guns.

The A6M5c is really just a standard fighter and would not fit the interceptor specification well ( which must have existed due to the Jack being built) . I would add the A6M5c would be a poor interceptor and was seen as a failure since the armour with the older Sakei engine made the plane too slow ( though it could dive faster) , i dont think its climb rate would be good enough for an interceptor either.

George was created by Kawanishi as a private initiative. This and the fact that Kawanishi worked on other (abandoned in relatively early stages, after George shown promise) projects of land-based fighters for the Navy contributed to its slow develoment and deployment (the prototype flew more than four months earlier than the Ki-84 prototype, but Ki-84 was produced in numbers and deployed in combat much earlier). until one of the main reasons for its slow development, although the engine teething troubles

That suggests we keep the George but at historical time.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Note i dont nec. like the 30mm due to low ammo but it fits the specification of an interceptor and was historically trialed quite early in A6M3 zeros ( they may have given up because the Jack was better at this roll but its pure speculation) .30mm wing gund would more pressure on upgrading the engine cowling guns to 12.7mm. Speaking of which with the Kasei these prob need to become wing guns.

Agreed, from what I've read once the engine was changed the cowling guns were removed and replaced with wing guns due to space issues. I wonder if this might result in an earlier adoption of a 12.7/13.2mm HMG for the Zero's?

[John 3rd]

Keep going guys. Sounds good and reasoned to this point...

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Note i dont nec. like the 30mm due to low ammo but it fits the specification of an interceptor and was historically trialed quite early in A6M3 zeros ( they may have given up because the Jack was better at this roll but its pure speculation) .30mm wing gund would more pressure on upgrading the engine cowling guns to 12.7mm. Speaking of which with the Kasei these prob need to become wing guns.

Agreed, from what I've read once the engine was changed the cowling guns were removed and replaced with wing guns due to space issues. I wonder if this might result in an earlier adoption of a 12.7/13.2mm HMG for the Zero's?

Could we look at a land-based Zero Interceptor built around the M3 design, with an improved engine and a combination of .50 HMG and/or Cannon? One could certainly see Japanese Research moving in that direction once the shortcomings of the Zero were documented.

[bklooste]

Could we look at a land-based Zero Interceptor built around the M3 design, with an improved engine and a combination of .50 HMG and/or Cannon? One could certainly see Japanese Research moving in that direction once the shortcomings of the Zero were documented.

When based on the zero air frame there is no reason to make it land only and i think its quite appropriate having some fighters on a CV whose job it is to take out the Dbs as they will need to ignore enemy fighters for the sake if the CV and kill the bombers quickly. This also helps psychologically in the adoption of armour. In actual fact since a base is land based and bombs cant sink it CVs should have interceptors. The wing tips dont make that much of a difference and you can deck park a chutai.

I dont think you could get the .50HMG in the M3 series i introduce it in the M4 since the engine forces the change. You could have this regarding the interceptors
A6M3 Land based , A6M3i (Cv capable) , A7M8i (CV capable)
A6M4 range land based Two wing-mounted 13.2 mm Type 3 machine-guns and two wing-mounted 30 mm cannon. A combination of the Jack and A6M3 in terms of performance.

Here is the arnament of the interceptors
A6M3 Two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine-guns , 2 20mm Cannons 150 rounds each .
A6M3i Two 7.7 mm Type 97 machine-guns , 2 30mm Cannons , Sealed Fuel tank
A6M4 & A6M8i Larger engine forces Two wing-mounted 13.2 mm ( note less accurate) & Type 3 machine-guns and two wing-mounted 30 mm cannon. With this arnament when 30mm shells run out the aircraft is still effective.

Basically the CV capable ones are later as the kinks are worked out.

Performance
A6M3 as historical
A6M3i as A6M3a but slighly faster climb 4,600ft/min , range 85% of A6M3.
A6M4 cross between Jack and A6M3 max speed 371mph , climb 4,800 ft/min , manuever values 20% less than A6M3a for 0-20000 , the same above 20000 ft. Max Alt 36,500 Feet.

[bklooste]

The ideas of a Uruyas are interesting historically after midway it was the modified  5th circle plan but we cant determine midway so i think these ships ( of the 5th circle mod ) should be held via House rule until 2 Fleet CVs are lost.  That way if things go bad in Jan 41 the player has the option to re-arange his production earlier.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

When based on the zero air frame there is no reason to make it land only and i think its quite appropriate having some fighters on a CV whose job it is to take out the Dbs as they will need to ignore enemy fighters for the sake if the CV and kill the bombers quickly.

The idea of having mixed fighter groups or using fighters that have signigicantly different combat niches in different squadrons of the same carrier TF poses extremely severe operational difficulties. Particularly if you don't have both massive overall superiority and proven early warning/fighter direction system, like USN did when deploying cannon-armed Corsairs specifically against kamikazes. Therefore it is not plausible for IJN.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR--What is your name Kind Sir?

I concur with your thinking regarding George and devilery dates.

My name is Stanislav[:)]. And as about interceptor, I don't believe that Zero can carry signficicantly stronger armament than 2x20 + 2x13.2 at most and retain decent flight characteristics without installing a more powerful engine than Sakae 21/31 (even A6M5c/A6M6, with its 2 cannons and 3 machine guns was considered overloaded, and there is evidence that the wing machine guns were absent on at least some Zeros produced in the last months of the war). Therefore any mass production version with 30mm cannons should appear relatively late and should be fitted the Mitshubishi engine, particularly if it also packs various protections represented by armor in the game.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
The historical basis of this is
1) The A6M3 planes with 30mm cannons were trialed at Rabaul if it shot down a B24 or B17 or 2 it probably wouild have been adopted.

But it wasn't. Likely its flight characteristics were too poor. I really don't believe that A6M3i based on Sakae 21 engine could have been produced, at least in sufficient numbers to warrant its inclusion in the game (by necessity, we must skip minor models).

ORIGINAL: bklooste
2) The Kasei was in the Jack, were asssuming no jack so either the specification was given to the Zero team or the Jack was cancelled earlier in both cases the people who planned to use the Kasei were in the new Zero interceptor team. Im assuming however that they have a lot of trouble fitting it to the zero frame ( a lot more time than historical) but that does mean the Zero with Kasei engines come out in 44 instead of 45. And im adding the A6M4 as a reinforced zero with the Jack engine mainly to deliver the climb so needed for an interceptor. The A6M4 would be a mix between the Jack and the Zero.

This is a good point and thanks for reminding me of this. In the light of it, what do you think about this proposal:

The main line (carrier-capable, more conservative design decisions): A6M2 -> A6M5 (42/10) -> A6M5b (43/4) -> A6M8, modified as stated in the post #119 (44/4)

The interceptor line (land-based, faster adoption of designs conceptually different from A6M2): A6M3 (42/1; has type 99-2 cannons, otherwise as in vanilla) -> A6M3b (42/5-6; resembles A6M3b but more durable, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2) -> A6M4 (43/3-4; Mitshubishi Kasei engine, armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings; flight charactertics proposed in the post #165 seem to be about right) -> A6M4i (43/9; the upgunned interceptor, the possible variations include 2x30mm + 2x13.2mm and 4x20mm) -> A6M8 (44/4). The player, again, can choose to stick with the interceptor version or to allow the upgrade to the well-rounded A6M8 model.

The fighter-bomber line is as described in the post #119.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR--What is your name Kind Sir?

I concur with your thinking regarding George and devilery dates.

My name is Stanislav[:)]. And as about interceptor, I don't believe that Zero can carry signficicantly stronger armament than 2x20 + 2x13.2 at most and retain decent flight characteristics without installing a more powerful engine than Sakae 21/31 (even A6M5c/A6M6, with its 2 cannons and 3 machine guns was considered overloaded, and there is evidence that the wing machine guns were absent on at least some Zeros produced in the last months of the war). Therefore any mass production version with 30mm cannons should appear relatively late and should be fitted the Mitshubishi engine, particularly if it also packs various protections represented by armor in the game.

Hi Stanislav,

The 30mm cannon did not weigh much more than a 20mm cannon , its the armour that killed the A6M5c, The issue with a 30mm cannon or 20mm cannon is you cant carry many rounds in the wings.

eg german 30mm cannon which i think the Japanese is based on
Mg103 146 kg
mg 108 64 kg (660-850 rpm)

Now 64kg say 40kg ( 2 * 20kg) more is not going to have any effect on aircraft performance (Escpecially when these planes are carying 400kg less fuel.) the question is with less rounds can you get in and do the damage. ( Even the more accurate long barrelled version is ok for us due to the fuel sacrafice.)

The more i look at teh A6M5c the more i think it prob should not be produced much even historically it was a limited run of only 150 or so planes and was seen as a failure the armour heavily affecting its characteristics. .

With regard to an interceptor as a 2nd fighter unit i dont see any issue , they do not participate in the strike so little coordination is required and everyone knows there job and roll. I would expect these planes to be frequently deck parked and intercept when a threat comes in.

[JuanG]

The 20mm Type 99-1 was 24kg, the Type 99-2 was 35kg. The 30mm Type 5 was significantly heavier at 70kg.

[John 3rd]

I'm working this morning so won't be able to jump in very much. IF you two can settle on the fighter issue we'll see what can be done after that. Once this is settled then the Mod is basically about through the design process. We'll have a few issues to settle on but with ships and then aircraft done all we'll have are small things.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste
The historical basis of this is
1) The A6M3 planes with 30mm cannons were trialed at Rabaul if it shot down a B24 or B17 or 2 it probably wouild have been adopted.

But it wasn't. Likely its flight characteristics were too poor. I really don't believe that A6M3i based on Sakae 21 engine could have been produced, at least in sufficient numbers to warrant its inclusion in the game (by necessity, we must skip minor models).

We are speculating but i dont think it failed because of the weight of the 30mm guns either
- The guns had issues
- The ammo of a 30mm was an issue
- The performance was not sufficiently better than the 20mm to justify unique production.
- The trial was against planes the 30mm would be bad against eg P38 etc

Note the A6M3i ( i for interceptor) represents the only interceptor as per the Jack daitai's. And the changes from the protoype which historically flew are more significant
- 30mm guns ( as historical)
- smaller fuel tanks to shave 500kg weight
- Self sealing fuel tanks.

This plane is lighter at take off is lighter a normal zero so i think chracteristics should be better since the game models average fuel load.

ORIGINAL: bklooste
2) The Kasei was in the Jack, were asssuming no jack so either the specification was given to the Zero team or the Jack was cancelled earlier in both cases the people who planned to use the Kasei were in the new Zero interceptor team. Im assuming however that they have a lot of trouble fitting it to the zero frame ( a lot more time than historical) but that does mean the Zero with Kasei engines come out in 44 instead of 45. And im adding the A6M4 as a reinforced zero with the Jack engine mainly to deliver the climb so needed for an interceptor. The A6M4 would be a mix between the Jack and the Zero.

This is a good point and thanks for reminding me of this. In the light of it, what do you think about this proposal:

The main line (carrier-capable, more conservative design decisions): A6M2 -> A6M5 (42/10) -> A6M5b (43/4) -> A6M8, modified as stated in the post #119 (44/4)

The interceptor line (land-based, faster adoption of designs conceptually different from A6M2): A6M3 (42/1; has type 99-2 cannons, otherwise as in vanilla) -> A6M3b (42/5-6; resembles A6M3b but more durable, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2) -> A6M4 (43/3-4; Mitshubishi Kasei engine, armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings; flight charactertics proposed in the post #165 seem to be about right) -> A6M4i (43/9; the upgunned interceptor, the possible variations include 2x30mm + 2x13.2mm and 4x20mm) -> A6M8 (44/4). The player, again, can choose to stick with the interceptor version or to allow the upgrade to the well-rounded A6M8 model.

The fighter-bomber line is as described in the post #119.

[/quote]

I dont mind this accept for 1941 , i kind of see the A6M3i as the Jack in zero form so in the editor just change teh Jack , this was a real 1941 need. The A6M3b just doesnt fill it id cut the fuel on the A6M3b and give it self sealing tanks for 1 armour while the A6M4 cary 2 armour .

Im not sold on the 30mm either though it looks good and is possible but mainly due to the low amount of rounds.

[JuanG]

I disagree that just giving it self sealing tanks should mean an armour value of 1. I'd rather suggest you raise durability by a few points, and then give the A6M4 an armour of 1. A rating of 2 is really not plausible on the light Zero airframe.

[John 3rd]

Juan--I concur with that.  We have to be realistic with this.  An Armor value of 2 would be VERY a-typical.  What would we take durability from and raise it to...
 

[mikemike]

A few thoughts:

The Mitsubishi Kasei (Ha-32) was quite a bit bigger than the Kinsei (Ha-33, a swept volume of 42 liters instead of 32 liters). The Kinsei was already bigger than the original Sakae (Ha-35, a 28 liter engine) which forced the deletion of the cowling guns. I don't think that shoehorning an even bigger engine into the Zero airframe would make sense.

I also have difficulty seeing what use splitting up the Zero into two (or three) development lines would be. The Mitsubishi design team should concentrate on getting the A7M into production as soon as possible. In RL this aircraft was delayed because the design team had to constantly tweak the Zero to keep it even remotely competitive and at the same time had to get the J2M into service which overloaded them. By splitting the Zero up into two different product lines, you essentially replace the J2M by the A6M interceptors, meaning no relief for the design staff. In addition, you base the primary Navy interceptor on the one airframe that is least suitable for that role. When you think of putting 30mm cannon in the wings, the much higher weight of the gun installation plus ammo is not the only problem, there is also the recoil force, firing such a big gun will put quite some stress on the wing structure, which as you will remember was designed for low weight and is quite flexible already.

In order to get the A7M as early as possible (which is important, because as soon as the Corsair appears, the utility of the Zero as prime fighter has come to an end), you have to ease the burden on the design team (and especially Horikoshi) as early as possible, which I think means terminating the Zero development by putting the Kinsei on the A6M5 (which the Mitsubishi team wanted to do) and so get an A6M8 equivalent in mid-43 which can be built with little modification for the rest of the war, and let the interceptors be someone else's design (why not, as we're in the realm of fantasy anyway, a derivative of the He 100 built by Hitachi as planned; this would probably be in production at the start of the war and would have the added advantage of acquainting the IJNAF pilots with the characteristics of "zoom-and-boom" fighters before they even met the P-40 or the Spitfire in combat).

[FatR]

No matter what the development team does, or how priorities are changed, there is no chance to get A7M into anything resembling mass production earlier than first half of 1945. Mitshubishi MK9 engine required to make it work is simply not available until late 1944. I'm not sure if any plane that was supposed to carry it (B7A3, G8N, C6N4 and later versions, N1K5-J, correct me if I've forgotten something) ever saw combat deployment. In short, if Japan needs to have better aircraft when they still matter, A7M is a bad bet. Even assuming that MK9 actually works to so specifications in large series, you know, which is far from given (the distance between prototypes meticulously crafted by experienced techicians and workers of the design team and devices made by average workers was enormous more than often).

The engine unavailability aside, let's look at Ki-84, which development was as smooth as you can get. Its combat deployment still was far too late and in far too insufficient numbers. It failed to displace Ki-43 completely even at the war's end.

In short, there was a reason why British, German and Soviet fighter development during WW II was very much focused on improving models they started the war with (Hawker Typhoon was close to test flights when the war began and La-5/7 series resulted from installing a new engine on the existing airframe, so they are not real counterexamples) and no radically new designs ever appeared in sufficient numbers to really start displacing the old and proven ones. Even USA mostly fought the war with modified versions of the aircraft that made their first test flights before the war began (Hellcat is about the only major exceptions among fighters, but it was rather conservative in design). To maintain at least parity in fighter quality to the very end, Japanese needed to have flying prototypes of A7M in early 1942. At the latest (Shiden/George first took off in December 1942, but it wasn't deployed in combat until Philippines, and even then only in small numbers). Which is my roundabout way of saying that they couldn't possibly maintain it all the way. The new generation was doomed to be too late and too little as well. Concentrating on improving Zero at least could have allowed them to keep up with Allied fighters for a longer period of time. And concentrating on producing versions of a single airframe is the obvious way to boost production too. Less radically different designs = more planes on the frontlines (although, to be honest, AE does not really model this part).

And the reason making the interceptor branch is Navy's desire to have an interceptor, as in RL. And, by the way, no, and attepmting to build He-100s wouldn't really work. Even assuming it wasn't actually a mediocre/bad plane, it was doomed to be another "too little, too late" plane for the same reason Ki-61 didn't help IJAAF that much - the inline engine posed too much problems in production and field maintenance.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I disagree that just giving it self sealing tanks should mean an armour value of 1. I'd rather suggest you raise durability by a few points, and then give the A6M4 an armour of 1. A rating of 2 is really not plausible on the light Zero airframe.

Not sure , the Jack has 1 armour and almost 50% higher dur than a zero yet caries very little armour or self sealing tanks. The idea was to have existing (low) durability but with 1 armour . I would argue for a significant durability increase though as most other planes with self sealing tanks have arm 1. Also the smaller fuel tank give a small bonus id say +1 Dur for the smaller fuel tank and + 7 for the self sealing tanks ( or +1 arm and +1 dur).

Note a P39 has about 120 kg of armour for a rating of 1.

The A6M4 will be well armored eg 400kg or so with a strengthened structure similar to the A6M8 to handle the Kasei engine and should have good armour if your going to go with 1 armour then the durability should be the same as the A6M3i ( eg raised). AGain you can go 1 arm and +10 dur or 2 arm and 3 dur.

[bklooste]

I also have difficulty seeing what use splitting up the Zero into two (or three) development lines would be. The Mitsubishi design team should concentrate on getting the A7M into production as soon as possible. In RL this aircraft was delayed because the design team had to constantly tweak the Zero to keep it even remotely competitive and at the same time had to get the J2M into service which overloaded them. By splitting the Zero up into two different product lines, you essentially replace the J2M by the A6M interceptors, meaning no relief for the design staff. In addition, you base the primary Navy interceptor on the one airframe that is least suitable for that role. When you think of putting 30mm cannon in the wings, the much higher weight of the gun installation plus ammo is not the only problem, there is also the recoil force, firing such a big gun will put quite some stress on the wing structure, which as you will remember was designed for low weight and is quite flexible already.

Agree with FatR , your not going to get the A7M until the engine is ready which we are already pushing forward.

The A6M3i will take no resources really just doing things that were already done , the A6M4 will take resources but most of this will be in strengthening the frame and larger engine which is needed and was done for the A7M so i would suggest building the A6M4 will bring the later Zeros with the Kasei earlier.

With regard to 30mm they were trialed historically and im sure someone would have calculated the recoil force compared to what the zero can take before doing it. Also i dont think there is much difference between the long 20 and the short 30mm not compared to the stresses wings endure in combat anyway.

[John 3rd]

Good discussion. I've had a rather busy day and am only now catching up on the entries.

Is there any concensus here? It would appear to me that we have a development line settled with the CV-Based Zeros. Is that correct?

The discussion then shall continue to center around the Interceptor idea. Is this doable? Opinions certainly appears to be split. Can we find common ground for this area?