# Japanese Army vs Navy



## loomaluftwaffe (Nov 27, 2008)

Always wondered why they had separate air services, it just made Japan's industrial capacity more strained cause it had to manufacture and develop so many different types of aircraft and engines for both air services.

Anyways, which do you think was a more formidable and efficient fighting force? Take into account that the Army had developed heavy energy fighters earlier than the navy did, and had better bombers (better in the sense that it doesn't go down as much as the navy's did)

But the navy had more resources diverted to it, (11k Zeros were manufactured) and had the edge at the start (the Army was still flying Ki-27s when they attacked Pearl Harbor) and also had carriers as well as land bases. Though they relied on the Zero way more than the Army relied on the Oscar. (it was supplanted by the Tony)

I'm kinda biased, more in favor of the Army though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2008)

Why wouldn't they have seperate air services. Most nations do...

Here are some examples:

*USA*
During WW2: 
US Army Air Corps 
US Navy (Aviation)
US Marine Corps (Aviation)

After 1947:
US Airforce
US Army (Aviation)
US Navy (Aviation)
US Marine Corps (Aviation)

*England*
RAF (Royal Air Force)
Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy)

See what I mean...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Nov 27, 2008)

Because it strains their resources, something they fought over. I mean, there were so many different types for both services, and they would also make companies develop new aircraft for that certain service. For example, the Army had the Ki-84, but the Navy still went on and developed the N1K-J series, both land aircraft, both troublesome. I mean, why not just collaborate and help each other so you can concentrate on that one type of plane and make it less troublesome?

I don't know that much about their rivalry, but thats partly why I chose to start this poll 

The US could afford to do that cause they had the resources to, and I guess Britain also had resources, and backing from the US.

I'm not sure but what about the other major air forces of the world at that time? I don't think the VVS had a naval counterpart, nor did the Regia Aeronautica, nor did the Luftwaffe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2008)

Its simple. Both the Navy and the Army have different missions and therefore different requirements.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2008)

In terms of innovation,, IMO it was unquestionably the Navy that was out in front. At the beginning of the war they had the most advanced carrier aircraft of the world were to first to grasp the advantages of operating as a single multi hulled well trained team (later coined as the Task Force), knew the advantages of attacking with mixed formations of torpedo and divebombers (anvil attacks) understood the advantages of concentration, speed, and surprise. Some of its commanders had already realized that carrier aviation was the nemesis of the battleship, which was years ahead of any of its rivals. It had developed its land based air forces to a very high state of readiness, with the Prince Of Wales and Repulse the product of that readiness. The IJN remains the only land based formation to have sunk battleships incidentally. 

I am not sure about your claims that Japanese bombers were more well protected than the Japanese. They were no better armoured, neither service had introduced armour into their designs in 1941, and the defensive armament was woeful in JAAF aircraft. The Betty's and earlier Nells had a propensity to ignite because they carried large fuel loads in the wings, but given the armour-less liitations of both services, and their failure by both services to introduce fire suppression technologies, this should not be viewed as a failure, but as an advantage. At least the IJN land based air had the ability to reach their targets and complete their mission, whereas the JAAF were largely unable to complete their missions, because they had to severely restrict their bombloads so that they could carry sufficient fuel to reach targets like Chungking.

IJN Bombers were better protected in the sense that they carried better defensive armament, and had higher performance arcs than their army cousins

The successor to the Sally Heavy bomber (the Helen) was not considered a success. The final development of the JAAF medium bomber forces (called heavy bombers in the JAAF) was the Peggy. This was a fast, well armed and well protected aircraft but arrived too late. It was matched in the Navy by the Frances, which was also a very advanced design. 

Japanese Army fighters did close the qulality gap with the Navy with their oscars, Tonys Tojos and Franks. Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack. The Navy were also in the final stages of the first Jet fighter, the so-called Kikka (no code name given), when the war ended

The separation of army and air forces was innefficient from a resource management POV, howeve this was not inconsistent with the modus operandi of all the participants, but moreso all of the axis powers. In Japan, the system was run by a military junta consisting of a mixture of army and navy cronies. Neither side was ever going to surrender their power base or influence to the other. It should also be noted that this cronyism extended into the military industrial combines (the zaibatsu) with nakajima generally supporting the army, and Mitsubishi supporting the navy. There was always going to be a division of effort under those circumstances


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 27, 2008)

> Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack. The Navy were also in the final stages of the first Jet fighter, the so-called Kikka (no code name given), when the war ended



While there were fighter/interceptor variants proposed, the initial J9Y "Kikka" was to be an attack aircraft using underwing bombs. (no gun armament) THe performance in tests also seem to be rather modest, with speed only marginally higher than the Mustang or F4U-4, even closer to the P-47N/M (at altitude) and about the same as the P-51H.

The engines used by the IJN and IJAAF were usually the same, albeit with different designations. The George and Frank had the same engine type, as did the A6M and Ki-43, and the older Ki-27 and A5M. (not to mention the bombers)


The real confusion and division came with the weapons. Not only did they develop them independently, but they used a great number of different guns individually and used a variety of ammunition.
For example, both used derivatives of the Vickers machine gun for fixed aircraft mounting, but the IJN used a copy of the .303 British ammo while the Army used their own 7.7x58SR ammo. (they also had a host of flexible guns including the .303 Lewis and copies of the MG 15 using the German 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge)
Both developed derivatives of the .50 Browning gun, the Navy with their 13mm type 3 used the 13.2x99mm Hotchkiss ammo (identical to the .50 BMG except for the caliber and ammunition) while the Army used the less powerful 12.7x81SR .5" Vickers export (also used by Italy). The Navy also used a version of the MG 131.
The Navy used 20mm Oerlikon cannons in their Type 99-1/2 (-1 is the FF, -2 is the FFL) while the Army had their Ho-5 derivative of the Browning as well as the heavy and slow firing Ho-1 and Ho-3 cannon.
They had 3 different 30mm guns: the Ho-155 (scaled up Browning) while the Navy had their Oerlikon derived Type-2 and indigenous (and powerful) Type-5.
The Army also used a number of even larger guns with their bulky (closed loop belt fed) 37mm Ho-203, .50 Browning pattern 37mm Ho-204, 40mm caseless Ho-301, and 57mm Ho-401.




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why wouldn't they have seperate air services. Most nations do...
> 
> Here are some examples:
> 
> ...



An interesting thing about Japan and the US is neither had independent Air Forces (RAF, Luftwaffe, etc).


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2008)

It would be hard to imagine the Kikka not being developed as a fighter, even despite its limited performance, and designated purpose. The Me 262 was at one stage slated for use as a bomber as well.

Even though its performance was limited, I recall reading somewhere that it was capable of a speed of 470 mph, which is much higher than any of the contemporary Japanese Fighters. On the assumption that it would retain the same good handling characteristics typical of nearly all Jap fighters, I still think it would have been an intersting aircraft to see in action, if it had made it to service.

I will see if I can find its projected performance figures, and get back to you


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 28, 2008)

The Kikka only superficially resembled the Me 262, there was another design that was very close to the Me 262 design being developed by Japan, the Ki-201.

The planned interceptor version of the Kikka was to use the much more powerful Ne-130 or Ne-230 engines. However these versions were considerably larger, much more like the Ki-201 design, while the prototype matched the attack/kamikaze version.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Nov 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Its simple. Both the Navy and the Army have different missions and therefore different requirements.



Not trying to contradict you in anyways but I just wanna know what exactly were these objectives/requirements? As far as I know, the Navy fought mostly on the Pacific Islands while the Army was based in China. Also, the Army was somewhat like the VVS in the sense that it was there to support the ground effort. (I'm not sure where I heard this from, and I'm not very familiar either with any Japanese close air support aircraft)

I also heard from another source that the Kikka carried no guns.

In terms of success, many would say the Navy performed better due to better quality pilot training. (can somebody please clarify? I hear alot that Army pilots weren't very well trained) But many enemy pilots couldn't clearly tell an Oscar from a Zeke, and both types experienced early successes too IIRC. (don't Oscars have funky camo schemes and Zekes all Greyish-White/Green?)


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2008)

My personal view is that there was little between them towards the end of the war. At the start the IJN had a clear advantage over the JAAF but things evened up.
The Ki44, Ki84, Ki61 and Ki100 were all capable aircraft often hindered by the poor build quality and fuel more than the actual designs themselves.

Re Pilot training I have no idea but would be suprised if the JAAF were far behind if at all in training compared to the IJN.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2008)

Pilot training was similar, as demonstrated by the relative performance of the army and navy units in China and against the Russians. However, JAAF doctrine was pedestrian and unremarkable. In comparison IJN doctrine was at the worlds leading edge in 1941 when it came to carrier based aviation, and land based naval aviation


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 28, 2008)

There are many reasons whay they had seperate forces. One being that the IJN and IJA distrusted each other very much, and both considered themselves to be the other's superior, especially so with the IJN who considered the Army and it's officers beneath them, especially after the IJA's Rape of Nanking. Both services were arguing for their own power, influence, and money and backing inside the Japanese government, each service wanting the most it could get.
But I would have to say that I believe the IJN had the more up to date tactics and training with having to coincide with all the changes and advances in naval warfare during WW2. I have always heard that the IJN pilots were the best Japan had to offer at the start of the war.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The IJN remains the only land based formation to have sunk battleships incidentally.



Tirpitz?

Marat?

Just a thought.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 28, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Tirpitz?
> 
> Marat?
> 
> Just a thought.


Maybe he meant sunk at sea, in which case it's almost true. The only combat sinking of a capital ship at sea by landbased planes besides Prince of Wales and Repluse was the Roma by German landbased bombers using guided bombs.

On the general question, the Japanese Navy was way ahead of the Army in strategic application of airpower in the '30's and general air-mindedness. They did most of the long range bombing in China. Then their air arm struck the most devastating blows in the opening phases of the Pacific War.

As far as fighter effectiveness, prior to the Pacific War Army and Navy fighters never met the same Soviet opposition to make a clear comparison there. For much of early part of the Sino-Japanese War, esp ca. 1938, a lot of nominally Chinese opposition was Soviet piloted but other parts were really Chinese. That was mainly v the JNAF which still achieved generally good results with the Type 96 (later 'Claude'), though suffered in some combats. Later on with the Zero, combat was very one sided in the JNAF's favor but by then the Soviet pilots had been withdrawn on the Chinese side. The Army only saw really heavy fighter combat in that period v the Soviet AF directly, in the Nomonhan incident in 1939, mainly flying the Type 97 (Nate) with earlier types also. Overclaims were vast on both sides but the true result seems to have been somewhat in favor of the Japanese in fighter combat.

Some of the superior reputation of JNAF fighters in the Pac War is surely based on the 'all Japanese fighters are Zeroes' phenomenon which is still embedded in a lot of popular perception. The Type 1 (aka 'Oscar') wasn't even firmly recognized as a separate type until later on, and even right to the end of the war Allied id's of Japanese fighters in combat were hit or miss, often seen when the Japanese side of the same combat is known, or simply by the frequency of reports of combats including both Zeroes and Army types which in fact rarely flew together. In 41-42 the Type 1 had a similar (high) kill ratio to the Zero v. most Allied fighter units it met, the exception being V. AVG P-40's, which never met Zeroes. The first Allied fighter units to match the Zero, USN/USMC F4F units, didn't meet Type 1's until Army raids on Guadalcanal and over the lower Solomons generally from January 1943. F4F results in those few combats aren't obviously vastly different than against Zeroes in the same period (and were reported as having been against Zeroes).

But as mentioned, in Dec '41 most JAAF fighter units still flew the Type 97 whereas only a few of the similar Type 96's were still in frontline service in the Navy. So the Navy's fighter arm was definitely the more effective at that time, for that reason alone. However even the Type 97 more or less held its own against Allied fighters in 41-mid 42, again except the AVG.

Japan's problem wasn't that it had two air services, as mentioned the US had 3 and Allies altogether a bunch. The problem was the general lack of coordination between the Army and Navy in all kinds of operations, R&D and production allocation, generally at the bare minimum, often below.

Going the other way and food for thought, a number of Japanese accounts rated USN fighters as superior to USAAF, at various stages of the war and I've never heard of any Japanese opinion the other way around.

Joe


----------



## HoHun (Nov 28, 2008)

Hi Parsifal,

>Japanese Army fighters did close the qulality gap with the Navy with their oscars, Tonys Tojos and Franks. Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack. 

Hm, my impression is that the Army actually was more innovative when it came to fighter designs than the Navy, and quicker to adapt to the realities of war.

At the beginning of the war the Navy was a bit farther ahead of the Army in terms of actual deployment, having replaced the A5M with the A6M while the Army still had the Ki-27 in service, but if you look at the path fighter development took from there, the Army was more innovative than the Navy.

The Ki-43 was about equivalent to the A6M, actually having an inferior armament due to the lack of cannon, but it was fitted with pilot armour which according to China veteran 'Ax' Hiltgen was even superior to the contemporary Mustang's. The Ki-44 was an entirely new concept, abandoning the idea of extreme manoeuvrability in order to gain optimum performance, with the AVG devising a preventive strike at a Ki-44 base to eliminate the danger it posed, and 'Ax' Hiltgen even pointing out that it was the one Japanese fighter that came close to the P-51 in terms of speed, ceiling and flying characteristics.

The Army's twin-engined Ki-45 was another innovative design that tried to copy the semi-successful German "destroyer" formula, being only semi-successful itself. Dan Brown on his website points out that the Japanese Army did not only copy the aircraft concept, but also modern German air combat tactics, including the basic "Rotte" formation. Their conclusion seems to have been that the performance of the Ki-45 was not sufficiently close to that of the US single-engined aircraft to make it work even with the aid of mutual support tactics, but even this semi-failure shows that they were boldly taking new paths.

Then there is the Ki-61, a liquid-cooled V-engined fighter designed along European lines of thinking, with the only compromise being an enlarged high aspect-ratio wing to ensure that the range demands of the Pacific theatre were met, and the Ki-84 which (according to a Japanese enthusiast over on Aces High forum) was the first Nakajima design developed for high-speed combat, with the control forces tuned so that the aircraft could not (easily) be overstressed during high-speed dives, a problem that had plagued the Ki-43 due to it being intended for extreme low-speed manoeuvrability.

The Japanese Navy on the other kept the A6M in service until the capitulation, and only began to add armour very late in the war. Noteworthy fighters introduced during the war were the J2M, which had fairly mediocre performance though the concept of a heavily-armed interceptor could be seen as innovative, and the N1K, which was developed more by accident then by any kind of innovative thinking and still fell short of the performance of the Ki-84 (as far as it's possible to make such a statement from the confusing reports).

So my conclusion is that the Japanese Army was ahead of the Navy in most respects when it came to fighter design ... of course, I'm not an expert on Japanese aircraft, so other opinions are welcome! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## blkstne (Nov 28, 2008)

Naval pilots had to deal with carrier landings and navigation(flying across large stetches of ocean to find the enemy and than relocate the home carrier after the battle). Most Naval pilots had to be above average flying skills just to handle flying onto a moving carrier deck. Both land and Naval had their select group of Ace flyers but I feel the Naval units had better Average pilots overall.

Call me biased because of my time served on a flattop.


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2008)

Just because a Naval Pilot flies from a carrier it doesn't mean that they are better pilots. It means that they have had additional training, but not that they were better pilots.
Some examples are the squadron of RAF Hurricanes that landed on the Glorious off Norway, no training, no arrester hook, no accidents, just sand bags in the tail. Also there is the Spitfire that landed on the Wasp when its drop tank didn't work, no training, no tail hook and no sandbags.
In the 70's RN Phantoms were often flown by ordinary RAF pilots after an extra course.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Tirpitz?
> 
> Marat?
> 
> Just a thought.



Neither were under way at the time they were damaged. Neither were solely or completly sunk by land based air. In the case of Tirpitz she had already been partially disabled by midget subs and carrier based airpower. In the case of the Marat she was damaged 23-09-41, by stukas from SG-2, but not sunk. The damage was inflicted whilst she was in Kronstadt harbour, the forward part of the hull as far back as the forefunnel was submerged , but the aft part of the hull was undamaged, and th ship continued to serve as a floating battery . She remained commissioned as an "artillery ship" after the war.

"October Revolution" was as extensively damaged as the Marat 21-09-41, but was repaired and returned to service to take part in the counteroffensives of 1944

None of these ships were underway at the time they were hit, and none of them were solely damaged by land based air.

There is of course the Roma, sunk by the Germans as she attempted to escape to the safety of the allies in 1943. However at that stage she was not an adversary to the Germans (although I concede this is tending to stretch the definition)

So I should clarify, modify and amend what I said to be that the IJN lan based air units are the only land based air force to independantly sink underway battleships that are also at war. 

I still think the record is worth noting


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2008)

Hi HoHun

Agree substantially with your appraisal. But would make the following observations

The armouring of the Oscar did not occur, AFAIK until later, with the "Mark III" (I think), and its lack of armament was a major constraint to effectiveness. The Tony, Tojo Ki-45 and Ki-84s were all superior designs (in their own way, but did not have the same impact on the war as the Zeke, which was revolutionary for it time, and for a time dominated the skies in the Pacific. None of these later types (except the Oscar, and then only in a limited way) could make such a claim as can be made for the Zeke (ie that they achieved air superiority to such a high degree)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 28, 2008)

I believe it was the Ki-43-II that first got (limited) armor and (modest) self-sealing fuel tanks. This wasn't operational until the end of 1942. The Ki-43 also had an even lighter structure than the early Zero, being more easily damaged. (the later model Zeros -A6M5- got somewhat tougher structures, I'm not sure the Ki-43-II or III had structural changes other than the cowling and wing tips)



HoHun said:


> Hi Parsifal,
> 
> >Japanese Army fighters did close the qulality gap with the Navy with their oscars, Tonys Tojos and Franks. Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack.
> 
> ...


*

The IJAAF may have had more dramatic improvements than the Navy, but they had a lot further to go. (particularly in terms of thinking)

The pre-war acheivements of the manufactures were largely hampered by the Army's obsession with maneuverability, something the Navy had already been compromising for better performance with their A5M while the Army stayed with their Ki-10 biplanes and refused a Mitsubishi's fighter. 

The Navy later got their A6M which focused on speed and range, it's main advantage over China was its speed, actually being less manueverable than many of its opponents. (the reason for the light structure and lack of protection was in search of greater range, not maneuverability, plus the US hadn't been puting armor and self-sealing tanks on their a/c yet either) The adoption of cannon, as with the Bf 109E was quite inovative as well.


The Army OTOH had been consitantly turning down comptitve designs (not for lack of the companies trying) due to their obsesion with maneuverability. As a replacement for their Ki-10 biplane they wanted improved performance with equal or better maneuverability!

They turned down the Ki-18 (equivelent to the A5M) in favor of the Ki-10 biplane. (in part due to the connection with the Navy as well)

Later they chose the Ki-27 over the Ki-33 (development of the A5M) at just under 300 mph, and the realatively advanced, sleek Kawasaki Ki-28 with over 300 mph (with fixed gear) and the Kawasaki Ha-9 liquid cooled V12. 
The same engine type as Kawasaki's earlier Ki-10, a somewhat dated engine (developed from the BMW IX I believe), though still offering decent performance and reliability -unlike the DB copies-, more power than the competititors' radials.

Kawasaki seems to put quite a bit of development into inline engined designs. (with their own inline engine) With their Ki-10 and Ki-28, as well as their Ki-32 bomber (seeing large scale production). Their work with the Ki-28 no doubt led to their debsequent developments of the Ki-60 and Ki-61.*


----------



## HoHun (Nov 29, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>The Ki 44's performance, while a big step over the Ki-43 (in terms of armament, high speed handling as well), would not be competitive with the Mustang, being somewhat poorer than the Ki-84 iirc.

On one hand, you're undoubtly right, but on the other hand, the Ki-44 must still have been close enough to impress Hiltgen, who flew a P-51 in combat against them.

Of course speed is the dominant performance parameter, but the Ki-44 was quite light and had a powerful engine, so a Ki-44 pilot would be well-equipped to turn the tables on a Mustang pilot by gaining altitude during a fight. 

Hiltgen actually suggests that altitude was important when fighting the Ki-61 and "particularly" the Ki-44, while against the Ki-43 and A6M (I'm not sure if he encountered the latter, but we all know that these two types were often confused by Allied pilots) it was just a matter of keeping the speed up.

>The Italian fighters had similar high AR wings. It wasn't just for range, but for take-off performance, climb, and turning ability as well. 

Well, it' my impression (from reading between the lines, I admit) that the main reason high aspect-ratio wings were adopted was the desire for range, but you're right that other parameters were favourably affected too.

>The preceding Ki-60, roughly based on the He 100, had shorter wings and actually had poorer speed performance in adition to high stall and landing speeds. 

From what I've read, this was mainly due to a larger frontal-area fuselage, so it was not the change in wing design that improved the speed of the Ki-61.

>Kawasaki seems to put quite a bit of development into inline engined designs.

They seem to have been in contact with Heinkel, considering that they not only adopted the He 100 design (which interestingly had been licensed to the Imperial Navy, so I'm not sure how it got to be exploited for an Army aircraft), but also experimented with surface condensation cooling and coupled engines (think He 119). Heinkel seems to have enjoyed good success with sales ot Japan in general, including the He 112 fighter.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ponsford (Nov 29, 2008)

>_So my conclusion is that the Japanese Army was ahead of the Navy in most respects when it came to fighter design…_

Interesting assessment Hohun and one in which I concur. 

>_Dan Brown on his website points out that the Japanese Army did not only copy the aircraft concept, but also modern German air combat tactics, including the basic "Rotte" formation._

Do you know if the _Rotte_ employed by the Japanese Army units extended to a _Schwarm_/finger four formation? If so the Army would seem to be ahead of the Navy in tactics as well. I recall reading of the Japanese Navy employing big gaggle, every-man-for-himself tactics. Surely the mutual support tactics of the Army would be superior.

What’s your source for 'Ax' Hiltgen’s comments?


----------



## HoHun (Nov 29, 2008)

Hi Ponsford,

>Do you know if the _Rotte_ employed by the Japanese Army units extended to a _Schwarm_/finger four formation?

Here is the relevant link to Dan Ford's site:

Ki-45 Toryu (Dragon Slayer)

Probably interesting beyond the tactical evaluation.

>What’s your source for 'Ax' Hiltgen’s comments?

Roger Freeman, "Combat Profile: Mustang".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## merlin (Nov 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> England
> RAF (Royal Air Force)
> Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy)
> .



WHAT, was there something on the news I missed!!?

To the best of my knowledge 'England' is still part of the UK! That is - it doesn't have its own seat at the UN. Unless of course you know different.
I think, you will find that the RAF FAA are part of the British Armed Forces.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2008)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> Not trying to contradict you in anyways but I just wanna know what exactly were these objectives/requirements? As far as I know, the Navy fought mostly on the Pacific Islands while the Army was based in China. Also, the Army was somewhat like the VVS in the sense that it was there to support the ground effort. (I'm not sure where I heard this from, and I'm not very familiar either with any Japanese close air support aircraft)
> 
> I also heard from another source that the Kikka carried no guns.
> 
> In terms of success, many would say the Navy performed better due to better quality pilot training. (can somebody please clarify? I hear alot that Army pilots weren't very well trained) But many enemy pilots couldn't clearly tell an Oscar from a Zeke, and both types experienced early successes too IIRC. (don't Oscars have funky camo schemes and Zekes all Greyish-White/Green?)



Well not to get into a long and lengthy discussion, but is the Army going to operate 1000s of miles from home, based off of Aircraft Carriers?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 29, 2008)

HoHun said:


> >The Italian fighters had similar high AR wings. It wasn't just for range, but for take-off performance, climb, and turning ability as well.
> 
> Well, it' my impression (from reading between the lines, I admit) that the main reason high aspect-ratio wings were adopted was the desire for range, but you're right that other parameters were favourably affected too.



All other factors being the same the primary advantage for increased aspect ratio is to reduce induced drag -------> range would be the first beneficial derivative of increased AR.

The primary factor (all else being equal) for improved climb, take off performance and turn would be wing/lift loading


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Nov 30, 2008)

Can anyone link me to some additional sources or Army pilot accounts? They seem pretty hard to find, most are about the Navy.



> The Army OTOH had been consitantly turning down comptitve designs (not for lack of the companies trying) due to their obsesion with maneuverability. As a replacement for their Ki-10 biplane they wanted improved performance with equal or better maneuverability!



But then again these sides reversed, cause the Navy kept its Zeroes to the end, while being a little later supplanted by N1Ks and J2Ms. But on the other hand, the Army was able to dish out less-maneuverable energy fighters earlier than the Navy did, and was able to produce quite alot of Ki-84s, which were pretty feared. The only thing that hampered these efforts was the fact that the Japanese had **** manufacturing quality and capacity at the time, which, I guess, made quality control take the back seat. The Japanese mechanics were probably just not used to handling inline engines, let alone badly-manufactured inline engines. And with the Frank and its Homare, pretty much the same, they were kept grounded due to maintenance/lack of fuel, IIRC.

If you notice, the Navy was good at the start with its Zeros and tactics and all, but towards the end they didn't put up as good a fight as the Army did, because they never really changed their tactics/equipment much.

I heard alot from other places about American pilots having a hard time dealing with Ki-44s, just a shame the Japanese didn't produce enough of them, it seemed to have potential, and seemed mature enough (unlike the Frank/Tony/George)



> Well not to get into a long and lengthy discussion, but is the Army going to operate 1000s of miles from home, based off of Aircraft Carriers?



I saw on wiki that the Army had carriers, and Wikipedia is a very reliable source of info! [citation needed]  

But thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that they don't operate from carriers, although the 1000s of miles from home part may be correct, but from land bases. What I really wanted to know was their specific objective, I heard from somewhere that it was meant to support the Army and have a limited air interdiction capability, forgot where I heard that.


...Navy seems to be winning


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 30, 2008)

> Can anyone link me to some additional sources or Army pilot accounts? They seem pretty hard to find, most are about the Navy.



I found this very interesting:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18_


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2008)

The main reason that the Navy did not have a replacement for the Zeke was that in the first instance, the pressure in 1942 to develop a replacement was simply not there. The Zeke was considered so superior to its opposition, that the need for a replacement was simply not anticipated.

In fact, of course the Zekes superiority was transitory. It was very structurally weak, and without protection. It had sluggish manouverability at altitude, and at speed, and its dive characteristics were substandard. Its cannon ammunition was not good at armour penetration, and a limited supply was carried onboard. It had a prpensity to catch fire.

During the war the Japanese spent some time trying to address some of these deficiencies, whilst at the same time splitting off part of Mitsubishis R&D effort on the Zeke successor, the A7M Sam. The result was that neither strand of R&D (the Zeke updates, and the Zeke replacement) was really satisfactory. 

The Zeke upgrades culminated in the A6M8 subtype, which was powered by the 1560 hp Kinsei. The last mark of Zero had improved speed, dive, protection, fire protection, and armament, but was still outclassed by the hellcat IMO. 
engine: 1x Mitsubishi Kinsei Model 62 engine [1,560hp at take-off, 1,340hp at 6,890ft, 1,180hp at 19,030ft] w/ 3-bladed constant speed Sumitomo propeller 
speed: 356mph at 19,685ft 
climb rate: 6min50sec to 19,685ft [26,240ft? 3,140ft/min - Green] 
ceiling: 37,075ft 
fuel: 610liter internal + 2x 350liter under-wing drop tanks 
range: 
weight: 4,740lb (empty), 6,945lb (loaded) 
armament: 2x 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns, 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 4 cannon w/125rpg, 1x 550lb or 1,100lb bombs, 2x 132lb bombs 
number built: 2 prototypes only 

The A7M would probably have outperformed the Hellcat, but probably not the Corsair, and of course failed to enter service. Partly this was the result of bad luck, an earthquake caused huge disruption to the testing regime for this type 

The army, on the other hand, was completing a number of protypes in 1941-2 culminating in the relatively quick introduction of a number of new types, such as the Ki-44, Ki-43, Ki-61 and the Ki-45 in short order. It would have been interesting to see how these army types would have fared against the mid and late war Zekes.....

With regard to the army carriers (the Type 3TL), they were more aircraft transports more than anything, and were not ever in service as such


----------



## ponsford (Nov 30, 2008)

Thanks Hohun!


----------



## blkstne (Nov 30, 2008)

I read war stories by American pilots in the Pacific know that they could climb to get out of trouble sometimes since most American fighters had a higher flight ceiling than most Japanese planes. Looks like the Japanese Army had much better ceiling than the Japanese Naval planes. That probally surprise a lot of American pilots used to fighting A62M's.

F4F-4
Performance
Maximum speed: 320 mph (290 knots, 515 km/h) 
Range: 770 mi (670 nm, 1,240 km) 
*Service ceiling 39,500 ft (12,000 m)* 
Rate of climb: 1,950 ft/min (9.9 m/s) 

F4U-4
Performance
Maximum speed: 446 mph (388 knots, 718 km/h) 
Range: 1,005 mi (873 nm, 1,618 km) 
*Service ceiling 41,500 ft (12,649 m)* 
Rate of climb: 3,870 ft/min (19.7 m/s) 

Hellcat F-6F5 
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (380 mph, 610 km/h) 
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (380 mph, 610 km/h) 
Combat radius: 820 nm (945 mi, 1,520 km) 
*Service ceiling 37,300 ft (11,370 m)* 
Rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s) 


A62M
Performance
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft) 
Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nm, 1,929 mi) 
*Service ceiling 10,000 m (33,000 ft) *
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min) 

Ki-43-II
Performance
Maximum speed: 530 km/h (329 mph) at 4,000 m (13,125 ft) 
Range: 1,610 km (1,000 mi) combat () 2,575 km (1,600 mi) ferry 
*Service ceiling 11,200 m (36,750 ft)* 
Rate of climb: 19.8 m/s (3,900 ft/min)


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18_

Yohei Hinoki speaking about the "Oscar". October 1981

The "Oscar" was a weak plane. They tried too hard to increase its range, and so made it fragile. It had no speed either. So it was shelved. It had lots of critics, and one of the loudest was Major Katoh. But in April 1941 a decision was made to use it. And it was supplied to Major Katoh's squadron.

Given to those who didn't like it? 

Right. That's when our agony began. On 18 May 1941, I think it was, Major Katoh came on a visit. He said he'd been against the plane because he thought that a better one could be made. Now the question was not whether to use it but how to. He didn't complain, he just said that he'd make something out of it. 

In the part where the undercarriage retracts there was a crack. It was wide enough to your your little finger into. The plane was a disaster. We didn't want to get into it. I'd heard it was bad, but I hadn't realized it was this bad. I got into it feeling very worried, very unhappy. I was scared.

But the improvements made to it made you feel better about it?

Oh, yes. Major Katoh worked on it day and night. He made what improvements were possible. But to fly it, you had to know what you were doing. If you made a sudden movement, someting would break. But we had been given this weapon to use; we couldn't complain. First we had to learn how to use it.

We went to the Fussa aircraft works. From an early hour a Type 2 plane had been going through combat tactics. It was moving at a tremendous speed. The pilot was Major Katoh. When we saw his display and speed and that nothing went wrong we were ready to follow on.

Our first action was on December 8, over Malaya. The waether was bad, thoug. We could not all keep together. My flight crossed alone to Penang where we saw a single Blenheim. We attacked in turn. When I fired and hit it, strange yellow grains fell from it. Nothing else happened until its tail went and the plane dropped. Then I saw five large planes below and fired at them before turning back.

Boosting the plane's speed produced vibrations. This made aiming erratic. And the weak firepower made it hard to destroy enemy aircraft. It was tiring work to fly it, but it performed well in action. The enemy would run, but giving chase wasn't easy. Our planes were like the old fixed-undercarriage Type 97 ones. The faster we went, the greater the vibration. It was difficult to take aim. And we were slower than the Hurricane. The Oscar could produce bursts of speed, though.

An unexpected characteristic was that some broke up during combat. We lost pilots that way. But from the start it was a sickly plane - attractive lines, but weak. It needed careful handling.

The second version had two cannon, so greater firepower. Its wingtips were clipped, giving it greater strength. And it could now go faster. It was now a plane you could fly with confidence - a great machine.

But when it had become a good attack plane, things were changing. It was now being used for defence, as an interceptor. So again its firepower was insufficient. And it lacked the speed needed for attacking bombers. The Oscar was coming to the end of its times.

When the Americans attacked, they attacked repeatedly. One night they came four times. I went up each time to intercept them, but couldn't do a thing. Next day I thought I could get some sleep. But a message came in. A formation opf 88 planes was over Akyab, flying south. We had only twelve planes. And with their powerful cannon, we wouldn't be to to get near them.

While I was thinking over plans, I flew out over the Indian ocean. I saw enemy planes there. They were not in formation. I went ahead of them, turned, and attacked from below. I aimed at the roots of their wings. I attacked seven planes without getting any answering fire. Two started to fall. The other five moved into formation. The rest were out of sight. But as I moved to attack the five, I saw that the others had formed up and were coming back to help their comrades. 

This impressed me, and that's when I became careless. I didn't think of other fighters until - bang! - I was hit. I'd been hit from behind. It was as if my right leg had been clubbed. From ten centimeters below the knee, it was gone. Out of habit, I pressed down with it and somehow banked right. I sensed other planes were coming but I was now half gone. The cockpit was black withoil; my face was all goose pimples. I tied a scarf around my leg to stop the bleeding and headed back. I managed to land at Rangoon, where we had a hospital. The plane was riddled with holed from 13-mm cannon fire from P-51s. The flaps wouldn't work, but somehow the landing gear came down. I landed, the plane stopped, and I passed out.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Parsifal,

>The main reason that the Navy did not have a replacement for the Zeke was that in the first instance, the pressure in 1942 to develop a replacement was simply not there. The Zeke was considered so superior to its opposition, that the need for a replacement was simply not anticipated.

Hm, are you sure about that? Normal procedure was to develop a successor for a plane as soon as series production of the latest type started. The developement times were so long that if you started to develop a type when the need arose, you'd have the first examples flying only a year after you needed it ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2008)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> I saw on wiki that the Army had carriers, and Wikipedia is a very reliable source of info! [citation needed]
> 
> But thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that they don't operate from carriers, although the 1000s of miles from home part may be correct, but from land bases. What I really wanted to know was their specific objective, I heard from somewhere that it was meant to support the Army and have a limited air interdiction capability, forgot where I heard that.
> 
> ...



My point was that it still comes down to different missions which mean different requirements.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Parsifal,
> 
> >The main reason that the Navy did not have a replacement for the Zeke was that in the first instance, the pressure in 1942 to develop a replacement was simply not there. The Zeke was considered so superior to its opposition, that the need for a replacement was simply not anticipated.
> 
> Hm, are you sure about that? Normal procedure was to develop a successor for a plane as soon as series production of the latest type started. The developement times were so long that if you started to develop a type when the need arose, you'd have the first examples flying only a year after you needed it ...



Hi Henning

I wont say Im "sure" about it however in effect, the delay that occurred in the development of a replacement and or effective upgrades on the existing types is self evident. 

Overall the Japanese assumed that the war would be of short duration, with the US seeking peace terms after only a few months of battle. If this had eventuated, there was no real need for an urgent replacement to be developed for the Zero. When the war did not pan out as planned, the IJN was left scrambling to seek a durable replacement for the Zero, which was essentially an offensive weapon, being forced into a defensive battle.

There were actually three replacements developed for the early marks of Zero. In the first instance there was the mid and late war improved Zekes, which featured in increasing proportions greater attention to defensive measures. In the second instance there was the A7M Sam, which I dont think began development work until after Midway. Finally there was the J2M, not a carrier based plane, but intended as a defensive weapon to be deployed on the far flung unsinkable carriers that formed the defensive barrier around the Japanese empire. This too ended in failure, the "Jack" was never built in sufficient numbers to fulfil this "air garrison " role


----------



## CPWN (Nov 30, 2008)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> Because it strains their resources, something they fought over. I mean, there were so many different types for both services, and they would also make companies develop new aircraft for that certain service. For example, the Army had the Ki-84, but the Navy still went on and developed the N1K-J series, both land aircraft, both troublesome. I mean, why not just collaborate and help each other so you can concentrate on that one type of plane and make it less troublesome?
> 
> I don't know that much about their rivalry, but thats partly why I chose to start this poll



Actually they had a try, at first IJA wnat to operate J2M Raiden instead of the heavy fighter plan which under development. However, it didn't macth the requirment and too many problems.

When near the war end, IJN try it again. They got some Ki-84s and tested.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 1, 2008)

blkstne said:


> I read war stories by American pilots in the Pacific know that they could climb to get out of trouble sometimes since most American fighters had a higher flight ceiling than most Japanese planes. Looks like the Japanese Army had much better ceiling than the Japanese Naval planes. That probally surprise a lot of American pilots used to fighting A62M's.



With the Hellcat or Corsair, possibly. With the Wildcat (even the FM-2) it would not be true. The Wildcat (particularly the F4F-4) couldn't keep up in a climb, neither could the P-40. (some models worse than others)

The only distinct performance advantage of the Wildcat over the Zero was the diving speed. (both acceleration and max) The P-40 tended to have a level speed advantage as well. (depending on the circumstances and models)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

IJN. The question was phrased 'better air force'. And an air force is planes, and also training, logistics,transport, planning...

...which means that the IJN moves ahead by a chopstick.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 8, 2008)

Just was reading over my lunch hour a book titled "Sea Of Thunder". There is a paragraph in one chapter talking about the American invasion of the Philippines from Japan's point of view. The IJN almost never relied on air support from the IJA, as the IJA and IJN almost never communicated, and the IJA pilots were not trained to fly over water. At this point in the book, the IJN only had a rag tag group of various planes to counter the invasion by the Americans, but the Army had more planes, but were not figured into any plan to try to turn back the invasion.


----------

