Maneuverability vs Speed

[Gary Cain]

I would be interested in how people here rank the CAS systems for each major country in WW2 - British, US (navy vs. army), Soviet, German, Japanese (navy vs. army), Italian, Finnish, French whatever. Maybe for early vs. late war (with some participants not around in the later period).

The big question and probably the most controversial in here, is how effective was the Soviet CAS. The Sturmovik, the Pe-2, the fighters armed with rockets. A lot of people say they weren't very... but somebody wrecked a lot of German tanks on the Eastern Front.

By 1943 the Soviet CAS doctrine was pretty well advanced. I would say the British had the best system overall, but the IL2 was by far the best CAS aircraft out there.

 

[PAT303]

but most of the rifles being used around the world in the early war were great big bolt action bohemoths with five round magazines.

Yeah no, the Lee Enfield wasn't a bohemoth with five round magazine, it's a very robust, reliable, very quick firing, very quick reloading rifle, I have three of them and use them for culling Camels, an introduced pest were I live as well as competition shooting. Having owned and shot many if not all WW1 WW2 rifles from around the world I'd suggest calling the SMLE anything but a riflemans rifle wrong, the Arisaka on the other hand is a clumsy ill fitting rifle much like the Cacarno, I'd go as far as saying having carried both that the designers of them had never handled a rifle before. The Mauser, I also have three is without question the greatest turn bolt design there is, so good in fact almost everything made today is a version of it.

 

[Gary Cain]

Yeah no, the Lee Enfield wasn't a bohemoth with five round magazine, it's a very robust, reliable, very quick firing, very quick reloading rifle, I have three of them and use them for culling Camels, an introduced pest were I live as well as competition shooting. Having owned and shot many if not all WW1 WW2 rifles from around the world I'd suggest calling the SMLE anything but a riflemans rifle wrong, the Arisaka on the other hand is a clumsy ill fitting rifle much like the Cacarno, I'd go as far as saying having carried both that the designers of them had never handled a rifle before. The Mauser, I also have three is without question the greatest turn bolt design there is, so good in fact almost everything made today is a version of it.

Wild Bill is correct, Most of the rifles WERE 5 round capacity, and not very nice. The fact that the Commonwealth had the SMLE merely reinforces what Wild Bill said. And while the Mauser is certainly one of the best bolt action systems ever devised, it was in fact a 5 round magazine, and when facing a Garand, not a very fun experience.

 

[NTGray]

I don't see where anybody has mentioned this yet, but to fairly judge whether speed or maneuverability is more important, there needs to be at least a somewhat comparable set of relative abilities, as there was with the Zero and Wildcat. But imagine, if you will, a Fokker triplane, extremely maneuverable, pitted against an Me262, extremely fast. If the Fokker was intent on dodging the Me's bullets, it would be very difficult to hit, and the Me might have to withdraw because of running low on fuel after many unsuccessful passes. But if the Fokker pilot simply turned upward toward the diving Me and threw the dice on hitting one or both of the Me's engines before being disintegrated, it might be possible for the Fokker to shoot down the Me. But, seriously, nobody is going to choose to fly the Fokker in that scenario.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

As far as the OP, the other tricky part to me, aside from the definition of "maneuverability" which I got into earlier, is does the aircraft have some performance as well. Can it dive or climb away?

Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.

Japan faced some immense challenges in WW2, but so did every country.

Life is a struggle. Some struggle less than others.

The US lagged behind in many aspects of weapons design during the war, some of which took years to rectify. The Mk 13 and 14 torpedoes for example. Many early US aircraft designs such as the F2A, P-39, TBD Devastator also did poorly, and many of the aircraft which ultimately had significant success were deeply flawed and / or had major, extended teething problems (P-38, P-40, P-47, F4U, SB2C) and / or relied heavily on technology transfers from the UK (P-51). The F6F and B-29 were more successful but came relatively late in the war.

Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage. Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped. The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success. Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.

I would say your summation above is a breathtaking under-estimate of Japanese military technology and capabilities. Aside from destroying the US surface fleet at Peal Harbor, they conquered Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Philippines with a swiftness that shocked the world, and their navy proved equally devastating - major setbacks such as Midway not withstanding - well into 1943. They were relatively slow to develop radar (though they did have it) but the fact that their torpedoes worked, unlike ours, and the skill they demonstrated at night combat meant that they were extremely dangerous in war at sea. Their aircraft like the D3A were highly effective and sunk many US ships while the A6M and Ki-43 took a very heavy toll on Allied aircraft and remained quite dangerous for allied pilots through the mid-war.

The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly. MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.

For a relatively small island they held their own remarkably well.

Islands are inherently more challenging to invade, and the great expanses of ocean to cross...

The late war Japanese aircraft designs may have come too late but they were hardly inferior. A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61 and Ki-44 (as well as the D3A) were competitive designs into the mid war. J2M, N1K1, Ki-84, Ki-67, B7N, Ki-83 etc. were all highly competitive, world-class designs through the end of the war, they just didn't make enough of them.

In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least. When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury, P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.

Experimental planes like the J7W were innovative and high performing, and they were working on jets derived from German designs (see the Kikka). Nor was the P-80 necessarily a war winner, in spite of being a jet. What ultimately did-in Japan was lack of resources and the scale of production in the US, not inferior technology. Having their code broken didn't help either, but the same thing happened to the Germans.

Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].

It is certainly possible to overstate the excellence of the Japanese military in WW2 but it's quite possible to understate it as well. In design terms, the only thing they really lagged at in the later war was was tanks and maybe mobile artillery.

They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?

I don't see where anybody has mentioned this yet, but to fairly judge whether speed or maneuverability is more important, there needs to be at least a somewhat comparable set of relative abilities, as there was with the Zero and Wildcat. But imagine, if you will, a Fokker triplane, extremely maneuverable, pitted against an Me262...

While this is pertinent to the discussion, comparing extreme maneuverability with high speed, the Me-262 was intended to serve as a slightly different class of aircraft, an interceptor / ground-attack/bomber aircraft.

This topic has gone slightly off topic form what I've noticed, though I played a part in that tangent. Discussion is veering towards what-if territory, but I don't want to bother the admins, so I might a new topic in the appropriate section instead if needed.

 

[PAT303]

Wild Bill is correct, Most of the rifles WERE 5 round capacity, and not very nice. The fact that the Commonwealth had the SMLE merely reinforces what Wild Bill said. And while the Mauser is certainly one of the best bolt action systems ever devised, it was in fact a 5 round magazine, and when facing a Garand, not a very fun experience.

The Garand only had eight and couldn't be topped up so against a mauser or enfield that could be as required I can't see any great advantage it had except for wasting lots of rounds unnecessary as soldiers wouldn't have attacked with less than eight in the mag so either fired them off or dumped them.

 

[GrauGeist]

Wild Bill is correct, Most of the rifles WERE 5 round capacity, and not very nice. The fact that the Commonwealth had the SMLE merely reinforces what Wild Bill said. And while the Mauser is certainly one of the best bolt action systems ever devised, it was in fact a 5 round magazine, and when facing a Garand, not a very fun experience.

This was touched on in the "guns we own" thread.

So without expanding too much and thus hijacking the thread any further, a well trained Wehrmacht soldier or SS Panzer Grenadier could work the action of the Mauser quickly and accurately and was demonstrated to me first hand. It was both impressive and a a bit unnerving to see.

In regards to the Me262, it was designed as a "heavy fighter" and was very capable of high speed maneuvering. It was when an inexperienced pilot slowed to engage piston powered fighters, that it was in trouble.

This could be seen as comparable to when Allied pilots got sucked into a low-speed turning fight with the A6M or KI-43.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

This was touched on in the "guns we own" thread.

So without expanding too much and thus hijacking the thread any further, a well trained Wehrmacht soldier or SS Panzer Grenadier could work the action of the Mauser quickly and accurately and was demonstrated to me first hand. It was both impressive and a a bit unnerving to see.

In regards to the Me262, it was designed as a "heavy fighter" and was very capable of high speed maneuvering. It was when an inexperienced pilot slowed to engage piston powered fighters, that it was in trouble.

This could be seen as comparable to when Allied pilots got sucked into a low-speed turning fight with the A6M or KI-43.

I had read elsewhere that it wasn't intended to be a fighter, though this may have been in the very early design phases. Otherwise, if this was indeed the case, I stand corrected. Yes, the pilot is the key ingredient in the performance of an aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

I had read elsewhere that it wasn't intended to be a fighter, though this may have been in the very early design phases. Otherwise, if this was indeed the case, I stand corrected. Yes, the pilot is the key ingredient in the performance of an aircraft.

The Me262 was originally conceived and designed as a heavy fighter.

The bomber version was a result of Hitler asking Willy if it could do so during a demonstration.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

The Me262 was originally conceived and designed as a heavy fighter.

The bomber version was a result of Hitler asking Willy if it could do so during a demonstration.

Heavy fighter, interceptor...well, there wouldn't be focus on maneuverability as there would be for other types of fighters, I would think.

 

[GrauGeist]

Keep in mind that when the Me262 was being developed, the Luftwaffe wasn't concerned about bomber interceptors.

The He280, which was developed as a pure fighter was waved off by the RLM. The Me262's development was not a priority, either and this, coupled with engined development issues delayed it's progress until Allied bombers made it a priority.

The He280 first flew in September 1940 and was a highly maneuverable aircraft.

The Me262 (who's design started in 1939) first flew (with jet engines) in July 1942 - the natur of Germany's fortunes changed considerably between 1939 and 1942.

 

[WARSPITER]

I don't see where anybody has mentioned this yet, but to fairly judge whether speed or maneuverability is more important, there needs to be at least a somewhat comparable set of relative abilities, as there was with the Zero and Wildcat. But imagine, if you will, a Fokker triplane, extremely maneuverable, pitted against an Me262, extremely fast. If the Fokker was intent on dodging the Me's bullets, it would be very difficult to hit, and the Me might have to withdraw because of running low on fuel after many unsuccessful passes. But if the Fokker pilot simply turned upward toward the diving Me and threw the dice on hitting one or both of the Me's engines before being disintegrated, it might be possible for the Fokker to shoot down the Me. But, seriously, nobody is going to choose to fly the Fokker in that scenario.

A similar "experiment" was tried in Britain between a Spitfire and I think a Lightning. The Lightning could get the drop on speed but couldn't target the Spitfire
close enough to assure a hit as the Spitfire was far more manoeuvrable and kept getting out of the way.

The Spitfire's only chance was to be able to turn tight as the Lightning passed by and try to get a quick shot in (very similar to the Fokker / 262 scenario).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula [...]

MacArthur couldn't do anything to stop Pearl Harbor, given his location. Sutherland could certainly have changed some things by allowing the -17s to take off early as Brereton had suggested, but nothing that happened in PI was going to stop Kido Butai on 7 Dec over Oahu, thousands of miles away.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

MacArthur couldn't do anything to stop Pearl Harbor, given his location. Sutherland could certainly have changed some things by allowing the -17s to take off early as Brereton had suggested, but nothing that happened in PI was going to stop Kido Butai on 7 Dec over Oahu, thousands of miles away.

I've heard he had some intel that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, but dawdled on alerting anyone about it, or something similar, if I am remembering the details correctly.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've heard he had some intel that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, but dawdled on alerting anyone about it, or something similar, if I am remembering the details correctly.

Everyone knew an attack was coming, but no one, including the intel unit at Corregidor, knew it would hit PH.

 

[GrauGeist]

MacArther had to walk the line between the U.S. and Philippine President Quezon, who was insistent that MacArther did not do anything to "provoke" the Japanese.

Quezon was under the illusion that the Japanese would not attack the Philippines.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

MacArther had to walk the line between the U.S. and Philippine President Quezon, who was insistent that MacArther did not do anything to "provoke" the Japanese.

Quezon was under the illusion that the Japanese would not attack the Philippines.

All of the principals on the American side were certain the blow would fall only against the Malay Peninsula and the NEI. A few officers suspected attacks against PI but their thinking got little traction. MacArthur himself thought the Japanese would give him until the spring of 1942 before attacking.

 

[GregP]

Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.

Life is a struggle. Some struggle less than others.


Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage. Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped. The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success. Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.

The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly. MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.

Islands are inherently more challenging to invade, and the great expanses of ocean to cross...

In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least. When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury, P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.

Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].

They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?


While this is pertinent to the discussion, comparing extreme maneuverability with high speed, the Me-262 was intended to serve as a slightly different class of aircraft, an interceptor / ground-attack/bomber aircraft.

This topic has gone slightly off topic form what I've noticed, though I played a part in that tangent. Discussion is veering towards what-if territory, but I don't want to bother the admins, so I might a new topic in the appropriate section instead if needed.

The F6F had the highest kill-tp-loss ratio in aerial combat. Not world class? I don't think so. Of course, that's just me.

Some argue that the FM-2 had a higher kill-to-loss ratio than the F6F, but the FM was a Wildcat. Group it in with all the other Wildcats, like every other aircraft in the world is grouped with itself when comparisons are made, and it wasn't as good as the F6F. All the FM-2 had to distinguish it was a different dash number engine with an extra 150 hp and a small fin and rudder extension. Other aircraft types had similar changes, but nobody suggests grouping them separately from their same-designation cousins.

Competently-flown Japanese aircraft were dangerous threats all the way to the end of the war. Yes, they suffered from pilot attrition, but there were exceptional veterans who were flying and fighting until the end. Nobody who was there dismissed Japanese aircraft as "inferior." At least, none of the dozens of real, live US Pacific combat pilots I have spoken with at museum functions. They knew some caught fire easily and didn't tolerate battle damage readily, but they were not under the delusion that if one got behind you, it wouldn't kill you quickly.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

In December 1941 what the allies knew for sure were what looked like Japanese invasion convoys with escorts moving into the Gulf of Thailand. Nothing had been detected moving towards other areas but lots of the IJN had not been sighted. It was monsoon/typhoon/cyclone season, making it hard to track ships and sort of the equivalent of invading France in January, not June 1944. Japan had a series of options,

1. Move onto Thailand with or without Thai consent and set up the bases and forces to invade Malaya and Burma at the end of the monsoon.
2. Invade Malaya
3. Invade the Netherlands East Indies.
4. Invade the US possessions in the Western Pacific as per their long standing war plan to fight the USN.
5. Combinations of the above.

The US received the 14 part message, which was not a declaration of war, the British nothing and I think in February 1942 the NEI received a declaration of war.

One part of the US/UK diplomatic efforts in 1941 was the UK making it clear negotiations with Japan were to go through the US, an effort to convince Japan attacking Britain would bring the US into the war, that "worked", but not in the intended way, which was the most probable outcome of such an attack was the historical 1945 situation so Japan would back off. Apart from the Japanese nationalists and racists thinking they would win anyway one Japanese fear was trying to stop going to external war would trigger a civil war, and Japan would end up like China, weak and at the mercy of stronger powers.

When it comes to the Philippines on December 8 local time the biggest fiasco was the way warnings were lost within the system. Hesitating over a bombing strike is more understandable given the uncertainties and the problems of suddenly transitioning to war, like some supply people at Pearl Harbor refusing to issue weapons and ammunition without paperwork.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You are correct. Most artillery doctrine was based on conservation of material. Hoard your munitions till there was a need, then plaster the hell out of the target. The use of artillery is universally the same, have an FO direct the fire to the target etc. the difference between us and everyone else was the ability to drop multiple calibers, from multiple batteries, from multiple directions and ranges onto the target at the same time. No one else had that ability.

That wasn't their only trick. US artillery seems to have been extraordinarily accurate, with quicker than average response time and quite efficient systems in general for coordinating large numbers of fire missions from a network of officers down to fairly low ranks (compared to other nations). Gen McAuliffe created a kind of call center at Bastogne to coordinate the fires from 3 or 4 otherwise smashed divisions and all their affiliated units down to company level. The US also had an abundance of everything - radios, field telephones, firing tubes, maintenance capability and especially ammunition.

And yes the British 2nd TAF was devastating when it got up and running. Helped a lot by the capabilities of the aircraft involved.

That is a fascinating story which I learned a lot about during another discussion on here about El Alamein. In particular, a book called Mediterranean Air War by Robert Ehlers (not to be confused with the also very interesting but very different series of the same exact name by Chris Shores et al). IMO Ehlers should have given his a different name because it's a bit confusing. But it was certainly very interesting read for me, helping to demistify this complex subject. The British made a large number of rather severe mistakes along the way but kept at it doggedly and eventually worked out the best methods of the war, in my opinion. The courage and discipline of the British and Commonwealth pilots, and the creativity of some of the Commonwealth pilots especially were all key to the success I think, as was the ability of the high command to keep reconfiguring their strategy until they got it right.

And back to the MG3, I could get two shot bursts out of it, and yeah, long range accuracy was outstanding.

Wow you are an experienced / skilled machinegunner. I remember one day they let me try all day and I think the fewest I got was 5-6 rounds.