Go Nancy!

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is actually totally fascinating to me. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not making it up, either. Some of their battleships and cruisers, some of the habitation areas, the decks were not even 6 feet floor to ceiling. Hence they could fit more living room into a given amount of hull volume and leave more space left over for offensive systems or subdivision. The number of compartments in some of their ships bordered on absurd.

In addition to small cockpits, a common complaint with most of their captured aircraft were weak brakes. That's partly a reflection of their less-industrialized nation--they favored grass fields longer than the U.S. did. Reading (translated) books and memoirs written by their aircraft designers was good reading, I'd recommend it in the book thread if I could remember the names. Their biggest limitation was their engine technology was a few years behind the U.S.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Mblake1981 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mitsubishi Zero A6M5 Cockpit
"Built with no armor, just guns and engine"
The power to weight ratio favored it early on.

(off-topic, but more interesting to me than the actual topic)

Wasn't "Jane's WW2 Fighters" mostly European-centric? Would make sense for it lacking the Pacific stuff then.

The lack of cockpit armor and self-sealing tanks were part of weight reduction relating to their inferior engine technology. The Zero had to make do with ~950 HP Sakae engines when their opposition like the USN's F4F had upwards of 1200 HP. Even by war's end, Japan's best radials like the Homare were only getting a little past 2000 HP, maybe 2200 or so with methanol, while some of the best American fighter-usable radials of the same era were able to push out 2700+ HP. Japan produced few inlines at all, the tighter clearances and tolerances required by such engines did not suit their industry as well, and those they did produce were mostly license-built models a few years behind the tech curve. The Army's Ki-61 fighter (a nice rugged model that did have good armor and protection) didn't get into service until mid 1943 but had performance about the same as a 1941-era P-40.

The Japanese Navy's A6M "zero" was the most-produced and best-known Japanese WW2-era fighter, but the Japanese Army's Ki-43 was much more successful, shooting down far more Allied a/c in spite of barely half as many Ki-43's being built as zeros. The Japanese Army and Navy both fielded complete land-based air forces, using mostly separate designs, a rather inefficient situation for a nation with already-limited production facilities.

[Jibartik]

I think I remember that commercial [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]