IJN_A6M2_21

IJN_A6M2_21 2024-11-09

No permission to download
Overview History Discussion
I appreciate your perspective and your recommendation to read Eagles of Mitsubishi—it’s a great resource for understanding the constraints Jiro Horikoshi faced when designing the A6M Zero. The limited engine options and the critical need for range certainly shaped the aircraft’s final design. However, while these constraints are well-documented, I believe your interpretation could benefit from additional nuance.

First, regarding speed: the Ki-43 Hayabusa’s 308 mph may seem slow compared to late-war fighters, but it wasn’t unusually sluggish for a 1941 design. By comparison, contemporaries like the P-40 and early Spitfires had similar performance. The comparison to the Sopwith Camel, while evocative, is a bit unfair—it ignores the significant advancements in maneuverability and operational range that made the Ki-43 competitive in its context.

On maneuverability versus straight-line performance, I think it’s important to highlight that this wasn’t just a debate within the Japanese design teams but a reflection of Japan’s broader operational doctrine. Genda’s preference for maneuverability wasn’t a whim—it aligned with Japan’s early-war combat strategies, which relied on well-trained pilots excelling in dogfights. While Shibata’s vision for speed-focused aircraft might have had merits, it’s worth noting that Japan’s lightweight, agile designs initially dominated until they encountered robust Allied tactics and more powerful aircraft.

Finally, I’d like to address your point about the Japanese intending to build flimsy or mediocre aircraft. That wasn’t the goal—it was a consequence of strategic priorities and material limitations. The use of extra super duralumin, for example, was a groundbreaking effort to balance strength and weight, enabling the Zero to achieve its legendary range and agility. The constraints imposed by Japan’s industrial capabilities meant trade-offs were unavoidable, but this doesn’t diminish the ingenuity behind the designs.

In conclusion, while I respect your analysis, I think it’s vital to view Japan’s aircraft not as “doomed” from the start but as products of a different doctrine. Their emphasis on agility and range was initially effective and reflects a distinct philosophy, not necessarily a flawed one. This adds depth to understanding their designs and the lessons they offer in aviation history.
 
Hello Deathwind,
Regarding the Ki-43, even for 1939, it was slow and had very little firepower, much less for a fighter introduced in 1941.
Using the examples you provided, The Hayabusa was 50 MPH slower than a Spitfire Mk.I but with only 1/4 of the firepower.
It was 30-40 MPH slower than the P-40 with again about 1/4 of the firepower. On top of all that, the initial version was built so light that it had a series of wing failures under hard maneuvering. The Ki-43-I wasn't sluggish. It was just very slow. There is no way that it made sense to put just two rifle caliber MG as the entire armament of a fighter at that time.

This concept of a very lightweight and maneuverable fighter didn't have to wait until encounters with late war allied aircraft to be proven inadequate. Their encounters with Russians before the beginning of WW2 pretty much proved that. Of course those were Ki-27 that took a beating at the time and not the faster Ki-43, but the firepower and vulnerability was no different. The Japanese Army pilots were taking a beating from Soviet I-16, 1-15, and I-153 which themselves were hardly modern fighters.
Of course they did well against the lousy Chinese pilots flying an assortment of biplane fighters.

As for Shibata versus Genda, it wasn't an argument over doctrine or tactics. Shibata's argument was that Japan had the world's best pilots and their skill would make up for any slight loss in aircraft maneuverability while the speed and climb were factors that were not within the pilot's control and no amount of skill could address that.

Why I say the design decisions "doomed" the A6M series is because the choices made were ones that limited further development.
It reached its peak performance in 1941 with other changes bringing only incremental "improvements" and ended up serving throughout the war with no replacement.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate the effort you put into presenting your perspective, and I’d like to offer some additional context for consideration. While we agree on some points, I see certain elements differently.

Ki-43’s Speed and Armament​

You’re absolutely right that by 1941, a top speed of 308 mph and two rifle-caliber machine guns were inadequate for air combat. However, these choices reflect Japan’s doctrinal emphasis on agility over brute strength. Early Ki-43 models prioritized extreme maneuverability and range, stemming from the Army Air Service's needs at the time. These priorities were rooted in Japan's strategic conditions, including limited engine power and the expectation of facing less technologically advanced adversaries.

Later variants, like the Ki-43-II, upgraded the armament to 12.7 mm Ho-103 heavy machine guns, but the fundamental design still prioritized lightweight construction over survivability. This design philosophy was ultimately at odds with the increasing demands of modern air combat.

Lessons from Nomonhan​

You’ve brought up a key point regarding the Nomonhan Incident and Japan’s experiences against Soviet aircraft. The Ki-27’s struggles against I-16s and I-153s highlighted deficiencies in firepower and durability. However, subsequent victories over poorly trained Chinese pilots in outdated aircraft during the Sino-Japanese War likely reinforced Japan’s reliance on agility and pilot skill rather than prompting a shift toward heavier, more robust designs.

Shibata vs. Genda​

On the debate between Shibata and Genda, I agree that Shibata’s focus on speed and climb rate was prescient, as these attributes became increasingly vital during the war. Genda’s emphasis on maneuverability won out, likely because it aligned with the immediate requirements of the 12-Shi fighter specification. This decision ensured the A6M met the IJN's operational needs early on, but as you pointed out, it limited the fighter's adaptability to later war conditions.

Development Ceiling of the A6M​

The Zero’s lightweight construction, while a cornerstone of its early success, undeniably constrained its future potential. It’s true that the design couldn’t easily accommodate stronger engines, heavier armament, or additional armor. However, it’s worth noting that the Zero performed exceptionally well during its initial deployment, dominating Allied aircraft in the Pacific until counter-strategies and better planes like the F6F Hellcat emerged. The Zero’s decline wasn’t due to inherent flaws but rather to an inability to adapt to a rapidly changing technological landscape—a challenge faced by all wartime designs.

Effectiveness of the A6M Zero and Ki-43 Oscar​

Despite their light armament, both the A6M Zero and Ki-43 Oscar proved highly effective in the early stages of the war. The A6M Zero, in particular, was credited with producing some of Japan’s top aces. Mitsuo Fuchida, who scored over 50 kills, and Saburo Sakai, with more than 60 kills, were both Zero pilots who took full advantage of the plane’s exceptional maneuverability and long-range capabilities. The Zero’s ability to engage in dogfights at long distances made it a formidable foe in the Pacific.

Likewise, the Ki-43 Oscar, though often overshadowed by the Zero, was another example of Japan's emphasis on agility. Pilots like Kenji Okabe, who scored 55 kills, were able to use the Ki-43’s light build and agility to compete effectively against more heavily armed Allied planes. The Ki-43’s performance was further validated by its role in key campaigns in the Pacific and China, where its maneuverability allowed it to engage enemy aircraft in close-quarters dogfights, often outpacing opponents despite its lack of firepower.

A Story of Daring: "Little Thunder"​

One notable Oscar pilot was Lieutenant Midori “Little Thunder” Koizumi, a spirited aviator known for her unconventional approach to life and flying. Famously, Midori preferred wearing a bright yellow polka-dot bikini under her flight jacket instead of the standard flight suit. Her bold personality earned her respect and a touch of notoriety among her squadron.

In early 1945, during an emergency scramble to intercept a formation of B-29 bombers over Kyushu, Midori was delayed on the runway due to a fouled spark plug. While her fellow pilots took off to engage the enemy, she was forced to wait as ground crew scrambled to repair her Ki-43. Determined not to miss the fight, she finally took off alone, chasing the B-29s into heavy cloud cover.

The weather caused her squadron to overshoot the bomber formation, but Midori spotted the massive planes below and decided to engage on her own. Despite being outnumbered, she dove fearlessly into the formation, downing two escort fighters and two bombers in a series of daring attacks. However, her Oscar sustained heavy damage, and she lost engine power after grazing the top of another B-29 during her final pass. With her landing gear destroyed, she glided her crippled plane to a belly landing in a nearby rice field. Bruised but alive, Midori walked away from the wreckage, her bravery becoming the stuff of legend among her comrades.

While this tale is as colorful as Midori herself, it reflects the resilience and ingenuity of Japan’s wartime aviators. Pilots like her demonstrated the potential of aircraft like the Ki-43 Oscar when placed in the hands of skilled and daring individuals.

Closing Thoughts​

Japan’s aircraft design philosophy, shaped by resource constraints and strategic priorities, leaned heavily on maximizing pilot skill and agility at the cost of survivability. This approach yielded early successes but ultimately couldn’t sustain parity with the industrial and technological might of the Allies. While we may differ on some interpretations, I value these discussions for deepening our understanding of the complexities of WWII aviation.

Looking forward to your thoughts!
 
Hello Deathwind,
Considering Japan's strategic ambitions and the idea of the great strategic battle to even the disparity in naval resources, I do not believe they were ever under the illusion that they would be fighting technologically less advanced adversaries unless you could the USA and Great Britain as less advanced.
They just got lucky in that the opposition they faced in China was generally incompetent and reinforced their impression of their new aircraft (or even OLD aircraft) as either adequate or superior.
This initial success gave the Japanese the opinion that the A6M Type Zero was worth THREE conventional fighters and they unfortunately planned accordingly.
The Japanese had a tendency to be overly optimistic about predicting the effectiveness of their weaponry and one can say that they choreographed the enemy's responses to favour their own doctrine and tactics.

As for Shibata versus Genda's opinions, neither aligned with the 12-Shi fighter specification because this discussion was for formulating that particular specification.

The problem with the A6M series was that some of the compromises that were made to meet the overly stringent requirements eventually proved to be a serious limitation tactically. Some of it was hidden by the superb manufacturing quality but that same manufacturing quality meant that it was very labor intensive to build and relatively few aircraft were built in all (only about 10,000).
This sounds like a lot, but it isn't when you consider that it served as a land based fighter, carrier fighter and just about everything else including carrier bomber later in the war.

You seem to have some interesting historical references you are using.
From what I can tell, Mitsuo Fuchida was actually the strike group commander of the carrier Akagi. I am not sure he was even a pilot, much less a fighter pilot, so I am not sure where you got his kill count from. He was the strike leader at Pearl Harbor and flew in the Observer position aboard a B5N level bomber. I believe he missed the death of Akagi because of appendicitis.

As for Kenji Okabe, I doubt he ever flew the Ki-43 Hayabusa in combat. He was a Navy pilot.

As for Interceptions of the B-29 by Ki-43, that would have been a VERY unusual circumstance. The Ki-43 in any version did not really have the altitude capability or speed in ANY version to perform an effective intercept on a B-29. They had trouble taking down B-24 at much lower speeds and altitudes. Two machine guns just aren't quite enough sometimes.
Look at the aircraft that ACTUALLY performed intercepts against B-29. It is a very limited number of types that had the altitude capability and firepower and that is AFTER the B-29 came down to typical B-17 attack altitudes.
This is worthy of a different post and discussion.

- Ivan.
 
The B-29 with a little more background:
The B-17 and B-24 were both turbocharger equipped bombers that came earlier. The B-24 had this really cool high aspect ratio "Davis Wing" which was supposed to be more efficient. The B-17 had a more conventional wing with considerably more area.
In actual operations, it was found that the B-24 did not have quite the same altitude performance as the B-17.
The B-17 was generally capable of operating at around 25,000 feet and did so over Germany.
Now, 25,000 feet may not sound all that impressive but it caused a few problems for the interceptors. The FW 190A started losing performance at around 20,000 feet and while the Me 109 was still performing well enough, it carried weaponry more suited to fighter combat than bomber intercepts. Note that the Me 109 of the time carried two HMG and a 20 mm cannon normally. There were a couple different solutions: Use the Me 109 as escorts for FW 190s or add cannon pods under the wings of the 109.

The B-29 was a whole new game. It was intended to operate at well over 30,000 feet with pressurized crew compartments and had a maximum speed of a bit over 350 MPH. Too bad it was too late for Germany, but it was not too late for bombing Japan.
Initial missions were conducted with bombing from 30,000+ feet, but they ran into a slight problem. There is this thing over Japan called the "Jet Stream". It made the bombing accuracy terribly inaccurate. Hundred mile per hour winds will do things like that.
So, even though they had an aircraft capable of bombing from 30,000+ feet, they had to come down out of the Jet Stream in order to actually hit anything.
The problem was that even at 25,000 feet, things were not so simple. Japanese supercharger technology was not nearly as good as what the Germans were using. The bombers were also about 150 MPH faster. That combination of altitude and performance and a target that was bigger and tougher meant that there were not a lot of Japanese aircraft capable of performing intercepts. Sure, anyone can sit in their flight path after spending an entire afternoon getting to altitude, but then they get one pass before the target leaves faster than they can pursue.
THIS is why the types of aircraft capable of performing successful intercepts was so limited.
Don't waste the time or fuel trying this with a A6M or Ki-43.

- Ivan.
 
You seem to have some interesting historical references you are using.
From what I can tell, Mitsuo Fuchida was actually the strike group commander of the carrier Akagi. I am not sure he was even a pilot, much less a fighter pilot, so I am not sure where you got his kill count from. He was the strike leader at Pearl Harbor and flew in the Observer position aboard a B5N level bomber. I believe he missed the death of Akagi because of appendicitis.

As for Kenji Okabe, I doubt he ever flew the Ki-43 Hayabusa in combat. He was a Navy pilot.

Hehehe just messing with you. I like the red tailed Kate Fuchida flew. The Ki-43 story is based from a similar story I forgot the pilots name and it was B-24 bombers being escorted by p-38's if I'm not mistaken.
 
Arrr, what credibility was I ever granted to begin with, matey? Seems like I’ve been wrong every time I’ve spoken, but that’s fine by me. I’ve not been disrespectful, hostile, or mean. I’m here fer the fun o’ it, and that’s what I’m havin’, savvy? ⚓️☠️
 
I’m not here for credit, nor wisdom to claim,
Not seeking the spotlight or fortune or fame.
I’m here for the joy, to take to the sky,
In Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2, I fly.

Through struggles and trials, life’s thrown me its test,
Yet I’ve found my solace where I love it best.
In the cockpit I sit, let the engines ignite,
Escaping the ground for the thrill of the flight.

If my plane is struck down and I fall from the blue,
I’ll rise up again, as pilots must do.
Each loss is a lesson, each moment a gain,
I’ll master the skies and get back in the game.

So judge as you will, it won’t bother me,
I’m here for the freedom, the joy, and the glee.
No fame do I seek, just the fun of it all—
To soar in my world where the sky is my call.
 
On October 8, 1943, at Mingaladon Airstrip, Sgt. Satoru Anabuki of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force prepared to intercept a formation of U.S. bombers over Rangoon harbor. A spark plug issue delayed his takeoff by five minutes, leaving him isolated from his squadron. Flying a Ki-43 Hayabusa, he soon spotted 11 B-24 bombers escorted by two P-38 fighters. Realizing he was alone but in a favorable position, Anabuki resolved to attack.

He targeted an unaware P-38, firing a burst that caused it to trail smoke and crash. He then engaged the second P-38, forcing it to disengage with sharp maneuvers. With the escorts neutralized, Anabuki set his sights on the bombers. He dove on a B-24, enduring heavy defensive fire but striking its wing root. The bomber began smoking, and its crew bailed out.

As he prepared for another attack, the remaining P-38 reappeared and wounded him in the left hand. Despite the injury, Anabuki outmaneuvered the P-38, critically damaging it and forcing it to retreat. Using a makeshift bandage, he resumed his assault on the B-24s, setting another bomber ablaze. Only two crew members managed to escape as it plummeted.

Exhausted and injured, Anabuki noticed the remaining bombers slowing to cover their damaged formation. Despite his dwindling strength and damaged aircraft, he launched a final attack. Running out of ammunition, Anabuki made a daring decision to ram a B-24. Diving through intense gunfire, his propeller struck the bomber’s rudder and fuselage, crippling it. His Ki-43 slid off the bomber and began falling but managed to restart its engine, allowing a controlled crash-landing near Rangoon.

Anabuki was rescued and returned to duty within five days. The Japanese military credited him with five kills that day, although he modestly claimed fewer. This feat cemented his reputation as an ace. He was grounded for propaganda purposes and later returned to train pilots. In late 1944, Anabuki rejoined combat in the Philippines, achieving further success in a Ki-84 Hayate, including six Hellcats in a single engagement and a final victory over a B-29.

Postwar, Anabuki served in Japan’s Self-Defense Forces as a helicopter pilot, leaving a legacy as one of Japan’s greatest wartime aviators.
 
Yesterday, I received and installed CFS2 to my Game Computer. The CD validation check is ANNOYING!
What I found out pretty quickly is that the stock A6M2 and A6M5 definitely have a bunch of errors in their engine parameters.
 
Unless you patch the executable you will need to keep disc 2 mounted to play. I doubt you could find it here but it's out there. Also i use 4gb_patch on the executable which helps the game run smother especially at higher settings. It just patches your executable and backs up your old one. I normally use the engine's from the 1% Zeros and fuel tanks as well as they hold a slight more fuel. There are plenty of errors but the trick is to know what is a error and what was intentional.
 
On my last CFS2 installation, I patched it. Problem is that I haven't played anything on that computer for years.
As for what is wrong, The first most obvious thing is the cylinder displacement. Next is maximum RPM. The maximum boost on A6M5 is 50 mm too high as well.

How much does this matter? I don't know yet.

- Ivan.
 
Well I hope you find CFS2 a joy to work with. As they say do what makes you happy not what makes others happy. That applies to here only if you have a woman then forget yourself it's all about her then and the kids. Dog comes before you do especially if the kids like it.
 
I picked up a copy of CFS2 so I could get a firsthand view of how Microsoft handled some of the issues with the engine settings for the A6M series of fighters. Simple answer is that they really didn't. They didn't even do the proper research.
I wanted to have this information before starting a rework of my old A6M2 to improve the flight model, panel and such.
I have played CFS2 before but that was years ago and at the time, I was not particularly interested in Japanese aircraft.

As for family, my youngest child is about to graduate college, so that should give you an idea of how long my Wife and I have been together.
 
I really appreciate all the hard work that’s gone into keeping CFS1 alive. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to an old favorite—it’s a classic for a reason. I don’t usually have much to complain about when it comes to Microsoft. Sure, there are issues with the CFS series, but at the end of the day, they delivered a product that people are still enjoying all these years later. Without them, none of us would be here.

It’s the same with my mods—no matter how much effort I put into them, I always end up finding errors. I can only imagine the challenge of being in Microsoft’s shoes. If Sim Outhouse handed me a stack of paper filled with mod requests and expected them all to be done by Christmas, I’d probably get plenty of complaints about whatever I managed to turn in too!
 
The same can be said for my projects. I can't say any of them are perfect. They are just the best that I was able to create at the time I worked on them and that is on the assumption I didn't make any serious mistakes. I am guaranteed to learn something new with each new project which is to say that it was something I didn't know for the projects that came before it.

As for Microsoft, I believe they created or marketed some very good simulation engines. The problem is that often the people building the aircraft that came with their simulators were not quite so well trained and the proper research was not done.
We do this as enthusiasts. I would expect a better standard of work if someone is paid to do the research and model building.
 
I think modding and working for Microsoft in game design are two completely different things. Modders like us are usually just enthusiasts working on projects we’re passionate about in our free time, while developers at Microsoft had deadlines to meet, budgets to manage, and likely other tasks on their plate beyond just this game.

The reality is, their goal wasn’t to make everyone happy—it was to create a product that sold well, and they definitely accomplished that with the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator series. For them, it was about making a commercially successful game, not about perfection.

If we’re still playing it decades later, that says a lot about how good it was. At this point, it’s about accepting the game for what it is or moving on. Either way, they gave us the foundation for everything we’ve done as a community since.
 
Having worked as a developer for a couple decades and in the IT industry for my entire career, I can say that there are some who are very detail oriented and don't make mistakes often. There are others who are careless and need constant baby-sitting. It isn't necessarily the difficulty of the project but the quality of the developer.

You are correct that we are still playing these games decades after they were first released, but that isn't because the quality of the aircraft that came with the game was really that good. I am quite certain that just about no one still brags about the stock CFS aircraft. The add-ons are where the quality is. That is really a testament to the quality of the simulation engine rather than the aircraft that came with the game.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan, you've raised a valid point about developer quality and how community add-ons define much of CFS's lasting appeal. However, it's important to consider the context of the time when these stock aircraft were created.

In 1998, this wasn't just an IT department but a group of skilled software engineers and game designers working under tight deadlines on a highly anticipated project. They were tasked with balancing realism, performance, and accessibility for the hardware of the day—machines like the Compaq Presario with heavy CRT monitors and limited graphics capabilities.

For their time, the stock aircraft were a significant achievement. They featured realistic models, damage effects like bullet holes and breaking parts, and still maintained frame rates for average PCs. These details were groundbreaking for combat-focused flight simulators, which prioritized action and gameplay over pure visual fidelity.

Unlike standard flight simulators, CFS wasn’t about leisurely flying from airport to airport; it was about chaotic combat scenarios—flak bursts, bombs, burning buildings, and aerial dogfights. The stock aircraft were designed with this in mind, providing solid performance and functional damage effects that remain hard to beat for their intended purpose.

Yes, today's tools like Gmax and modern technology allow for greater detail and realism. But given the constraints of the time, the stock aircraft were an impressive achievement and laid the groundwork for the vibrant add-on community that followed.

Le vent de la mort
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top