# How good was Japanese aviation?



## Chiron (Feb 20, 2005)

Hey, sometimes, or maybe often I heard Japanese were (are) simply copy cats; their technology were simply derived largely from others (German) and with little mdification. Of course, this is simply a mix of superfical and of racial discrimination toward Asians. We all know that Chinese were the most technological civilization on Earth for almost 2000 years (CIA World Fact Book), and westerners copied lots of most fundamenal stuffs from all of neighbors.....

Anyway, did Japan develop any outstanding aircraft (other than the famous Zero) that rival European most sophisticated fighter/bomber???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

The Ki-84 Frank and N1K2-J Shiden were fantastic fighters and rivaled some of the very best American planes...Ill have a look for some info on them for you...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

The Japanese had the same sort of doctrine as the Italians, range and manouverability were the attributes needed, the armament in the early part of the pacific war was terrible (2x12.7mm) and they had no self-sealing fuel tanks or any armour


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

> Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate "Frank"
> 
> Type:
> Single-seat interceptor and fighter-bomber
> ...






> Kawanishi N1K1-J/N1K2-J Shiden "Violet Lightning"
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Type: Single-seat land-based intersecptor
> ...



www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

their bomber's weren't up to much though............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Nah...they had some good early war dive bombers like the Val though. The G4M Betty was probably their best bomber, but it was hugely underarmed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Again, long range was everything so they had no armour and hardly any defensive armament. Bomb load wasn't too good either


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

mind you they didn't exactly need a big heavy bomber, well not until the end of the war anyway.........


----------



## toffigd (Feb 20, 2005)

Did anyone noticed, that G4M Betty had a fuselage much wider than other double-engined bombers? And I think bomb load wasn't such bad.
But I must agree that most of early war Jap planes were very easy to make a torch of them.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

couple of .50s in the fuel tanks and there we go


----------



## JCS (Feb 20, 2005)

> The G4M Betty was probably their best bomber



Actually the Mitsubishi Ki67 Hiryu was considered best from what I've seen...



> This heavy bomber design was in response to a 1941 Army specification requesting a high speed heavy bomber. The Ki-67 not only met the speed requirement but did so while achieving the manueverability of a fighter. In addition, the Hiryu "Flying dragon" also sported armour and self sealing fuel tanks and was perhaps one of the best all around bomber produced by Japanese. The aircraft could be looped and it's turning radius often exceed some fighter designs. This performance inspired the development of the type into a heavy fighter, which in addition to more powerful turbocharged engines, would have a hand loaded 75mm cannon and 15 rounds of ammunition. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a B-29 crewman) the more powerful engines were not available and the Ki-109 was equipped with standard engines which would not allow the aircraft to reach sufficient altitude to attack the Superfortresses


----------



## Soren (Feb 20, 2005)

The Japaness had great Fighters , but they were designed souly to dogfight, and not to be able to come home full of holes ! 

The Japanees never build a decent bomber ! The bombers they did build, had poor payload and were notoriously weak ! The six 50.cal's on a Hellcat would litterally "Rip" a betty bomber apart


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Ah thanks for that JCS, as you can see im not up on me Jap bombers


----------



## Chiron (Feb 20, 2005)

By the way, I heard that during the last stage of war, Japan was acutally developing their own nuclear bomb. Americans actually destoryed a ship that carried enriched nuclear materials.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 20, 2005)

This bad boy was supposed to be under development at the end of the war!
Its the Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku (Mount Fuji). It never got off the drawing board though.

The Japanese did have at least one 4 engined heavy bomber during the whole war! It was the Nakajima G5N1 Shinzan (Mountain Recess). There were 6 built in the 40 or 41. They were configured to be heavy bombers but served the entire time as transports!!

They also ended up building the Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range) ... Yep they liked to name stuff after mountains!!! There were four built and the first flight was in 1944.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

That Fugaku looks neat! 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 20, 2005)

The Japanese had three major problems during the war:
1) Very few natural recources.
2) The Samuri belief that the man made/won the fight not the tools.
3) They were not prepared/intended to/able to fight a prolonged all out war with anyone in a position to fight back. 

To fight/win a major war a nation must, have the recources, will, and the stubornness to see it through. Just hoping they will give up if you give them a bloody nose the first day is unrealistic. But they did. In every major war since the 1850s the aggressor has failed to take a realistic view of their opponents capabilities or their aliances and make preperations to deal properly with them.

Those are cool pictures, are there any specs. to go with them?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 20, 2005)

Lets see. The G5N Sinzan: 

Powerplant:

Four Nakajima NK7A Mamoru 11 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials rated at 1,870 hp for take-off, 1,750 hp at 1,400 m and 1,600 hp at 4,900 m, driving four-blade constant-speed propellers (G5N1).
Four Mitsubishi Kasei 12 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials rated at 1,530 hp for take-off, 1,480 hp at 2,200 m and 1,380 hp at 4,100 m, driving four-blade constant-speed propellers (G5N2).

Armament:
20 mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon in the dorsal and tail turrets and one 7.7 mm Type 97 machine-gun in each of the nose, ventral port and starboard beam positions.
Bomb-load: normal 4400 lbs, maximum 8800 lbs

Max speed 260 mph @ 13,500ft
Cruise 230 mph @ 13,000ft

Ceiling 24,500 ft
Range 2,300 nautical miles

Max takeoff weight 70,400 lbs


For the Renzan:
4 x Nakajima NK9K-L "Homare-24" at 2000 hp
Max speed 367 mph
Cruise 240 mph
Ceiling 33500 ft
Range 2500 miles
Armament 6 x 20mm cannons, 4 x 12.7mm MGs, 2200-8800lbs of bombs


Fugaku:
Powerplant: six Nakajima Ha-54 4-row 36-cylinder air-cooled radials, 5000hp
Max weight 269000 lbs
Max speed 485 mph <== I dont know if this is correct
Ceiling 50000 ft
Range 12000 miles
Armament 4 × 20mm cannon, 44000lbs of bombs
Glad that thing wasnt built!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Bloody hell that Fugaku has some good stats!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

i seriously doubt it could pull them stats off though...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

You seem to doubt everything...especially if it's superior to the Lancaster...


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2005)

Even 'if' it could pull'em off, then if i know Jap aircraft good enough "It would be very fragile !"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Yep, look at the armament, 4 x 20mm, not exactly bristling with guns is it


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

Japanese plane designs were innovative and often of an equivalent quality to that of the other nations of WWII. The KI-84 certianly was a top of the line fighter in 1945. Japanese gun technology was decent as well, though... confused.

That being said, their engine technology was not up to their airframe designs. In this respect, they were pretty much "copy cats". Most (if not all) of their radial engines were derived from the Wright Cyclone engines which they licenced for production and purchased production equipment for prior to the war. Materials technology was also poor. In the end, they were never able to break the 2000 HP barrier nor were they able to produce an effective high-altitude interceptor engine.

Fighters are built around their engines!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

They did do some copy work, the Sakae is such a knock off of the R-1830, you can interchange parts between them. But the Japanese did have a license to build them before the war. They did manage to get more horsepower out of the 1830 in the Sakae.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> They did do some copy work, the Sakae is such a knock off of the R-1830, you can interchange parts between them. But the Japanese did have a license to build them before the war. They did manage to get more horsepower out of the 1830 in the Sakae.



The Nakajima NK1F Sakae 21 on the A6M3 produced 1130 HP at critical altitude using a two stage supercharger, later variants were unreliable but are claimed to have produced as much as 1340 HP (when working). The P&W R-1830-36 (and 65 and 92) produced 1200 HP.

But that comaprison is not really fair. P&W development focused on the R-2800, not the R-1830, when seeking HP beyond 1200. Wright on the otherhand, managed to tweak some 1350 HP out of it's 9 cylinder Wright R-1820-66 Cyclone (as used on the Dauntless).

When the Japanese tried to extract more than about 1500 HP out of their engines, the result was an unreliable engine that was more dangerous to the pilots than even US fighters. Some will say this was because of poor materials and lack of skilled workers, and this is partially true (Japanese fuel systems were notoriously poorly designed) - but produceability is part of any design! It is useless to design something your industry cannot produce.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

I wasn't making any comparisons, I was just stating what the Japanese did with the 1830. I understand by the beginning of the war, the Americans knew that when it comes to horsepower, there's no replacement for displacement. Producability was always a factor with the Zero. They are a big pain in the butt to work on! Just to tighten the cowling back down after it has been repalced is a long and tedious process.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 23, 2005)

It seems like some people tend to catogorize Japanese/Asians as a distinct people from other developed nations. In other words, all industrialized nations shared technology and science; British and American shared a lots in aviation, such as the P-51. Whereas "copy" is usually a word to describe how non-Western nations caught up or surpassed in some tehnological fields, "innovation" is the words for any Western state that achieved in particular technological progress, even it initially "borrowed"/"acquired" the fundamentals from major Western powers.

From certaiin perspectives, Japan was isolated from international organizations even after it demonstrated its military power after defeating Russia in Russo-Japanese war, Western industrialized nations viewed Japan as non-white state. The racial descrimination and unequal treatment were some of attributions to the rise of militarism and of colonialism in Japan in post 1930s.

This kind of racial analysis upon one state's achievement still going on in modern time. I recalled when Japan began to export cars (such as early Honda and Toyota) to Europe and to US; the reaction from Euroepans were unlike what people in WWII viewed Japanese products: copy, poor disigned and unsophisticated.

In 1980s, most acedemics believed Japan would take over USA as the sole economic power on earth; 8 out of 10 world largest banks were Japanese. And the real estate of Japanese Imperial palace was as expensive as the whole real estate of whole California.

Today, China was kind of repeating what Japan did in last two decades, altough Economists described its as "2nd Industrialization". Chinese produce cheap stuffs; toys, clothings, tvs...And there are numerious copies in China too. Its military technology are still two decades away in comparison with US, but if it took Japan 50 years to catch up US in ecnomy, with ample natural and human resources, China will probably surpass American in some technological fields within less 2 decades (Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, are all technological Chinese states).


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2005)

No Chiron,

I was simply pointing out that while Japanese aeroengineering design was quite advanced, their engine design was not. The did indeed "copy" western designs, and in fact even used imported machine tooling to build them. What it comes down to is that their engineers were as advanced as anyone elses, but their culture and economy was not. As a result, they more than any other major nation in WWII lacked the industrial base capablity to produce complex engines and other first rate designs.

As for the modern world, especially w.r.t. china, what they cannot build themselves they can import. This accelerates their ability to develop the capacity to produce these things themselves. In another decade and a half or so, they will have "caught up", which will create a very dangerous world for all of us.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2005)

This I extracted from WW2 aces website. Is an extract of a serie of relates by Satoru Anabuki japanese ace with 51 kills.

If this is an actual event or not I will let to your opinion.

Anabuki's greatest deed happened on October 8 1943, when at 12:10 hs four Hayabusas (one of them flown by Sgt Anabuki) taxied in Mingaladon airstrip to take off and intercepte several B-24s which were raiding against a Japanese convoy in Rangoon harbour. However, a fouled spark plug caused that Anabuki should delay his take off during 5 minutes. When he finally could scramble, was unable to find his three buddies and a second flight of four Ki-43s (which were also tasked to intercepte the bombers) because of the haze. Suddenly, when he got out of the hazy area, saw his target: 11 B-24s together with two escorting P-38s, which apparently did not notice him. 

Anabuki realized that -due to the hazy weather- none of his comrades had found the enemy and that he was completely alone. But Anabuki also noticed that he was in a perfect attack position against both the enemy fighters and bombers, and the surprise factor was at his side. Being a hunter by nature, Anabuki decided to take that chance despite the odds were against him.

So, Anabuki choose one of the unaware Lightnings, put it in the gunsight of his Ki-43 Hayabusa and badly shot it up (Anabuki saw the incendaries exploding around the P-38's cockpit), breaking his attack and diving only when he almost collide the American plane. As he turned to repeat his attack, saw the P-38 trying a loop while leaving a trail of black smoke. Suddenly the P-38 stalled and went downwards, crashing near Yangon river. Then Anabuki jumped the P-38 leader, but his adversary was an experienced pilot because it immediatelly rolled and steeply dove. Knowing that his Ki-43 Hayabusa was excellent in dogfighting and could out-turn the P-38, but could not compete with the Lightning in dive and climb rates, Anabuki did not even try to follow the American plane, instead he concentrated in the bombers.


"All I could see was the enemy. I'm diving straight down towards the dark jungle. Life or death didn't matter then. If the gods still need me they wouldn't let me die. I see an image of my mother's face. I think I heard her yelling `Go, Satoru,go!`. I think of what a strong woman my mother is. I think to myself I must be as strong. Distance closes further. 300, 200, I see my bullets get sucked into the gigantic B-24. Getting closer. 150, 100. I start firing my final burst.

The enemy's defensive fire is fierce. Their formation is trailing a lot of gun smoke, raining bullets in successive bursts, but I know as long as I'm at this angle, they can't hit me. My target starts smoking from the wing root. Even as I'm firing, the white smoke is getting bigger and bigger. I'm near collision and I break off to the left and to the rear of the enemy, diving vertically. Fifty some enemy machine guns are firing at me, but not a single bullet hit me as I speeded away out of their range. "

When Anabuki prepared himself for a second pass against the badly hit B-24, saw that it slipped at one side, the crew bailed out and the bomber began to spin. So, in few minutes he added one P-38 and one B-24 to his killboard. 

But when he was ready to attack the bombers for the second time, suddenly saw tracers passing very close to his port wing. Anabuki sharply broke to starboard, avoiding the burst, but a second one struck his plane, being the Japanese pilot badly wounded in his left hand. Anabuki realised that the P-38 leader which had previously escaped was back, and it was willing to take him out. Despite the intense pain, Anabuki performed a series of the sharp turns, exploiting the superior turn capability of the Ki-43 Hayabusa and forcing the American pilot to gave up. When the P-38 pilot did so, Anabuki rolled his plane and reversed towards the Lightning. At point-blank range (about 30 mts) the Japanese ace fired and black smoke emerged from the P-38, together with oil which splattered over the windshield of the Ki-43 and temporarily blinded Anabuki. When he recover the sight, the P-38 was diving away again, this time definitively.


The history continue. But to make not the post too long conclude with satoru ramming ( and bagging) another B-24 and bailing out.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

I find it at best dubious. The Ki-43-I Hayabusa was, at best, armed with one Ho-103 12.7mm with ~300 rounds, and one 7.7mm mg with ~500 rounds. Given the description, there just doesn't seem to be enough ammo to support it. B-24's could generally take a lot of 12.7 mm hits, and a tremendous number of 7.7mm hits.

I'd have to see confirmation of the losses on that date to believe it. The Japanese were notorious for false kill claims.

And just what angle would he be "safe" from the B-24 return fire? There isn't one!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 18, 2005)

Guncam of unknow japanese hidroplane under attack, maybe by F4U.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

I think it's a hellcat, judging from the other plane you can see half way through the film. The wings are not gulled enough to be a Corsair.


----------



## GT (Mar 19, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

LOL - hardly.

Look at the data for the Ki-84. It was good, but it was not that good.

And the US post-war tests involved a Frank with a US re-designed fuel delivery system running hi-octane fuel the Japanese did not have. Even so it was slower than the US fighters you've mentioned.

BTW: the F4U-4 made 20,000 feet in under 5 minutes - the Frank could not come close to this climb rate.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Mar 20, 2005)

Update.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

But being Japanese it wasnt exactly hard to take out.


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

Chiron said:


> By the way, I heard that during the last stage of war, Japan was acutally developing their own nuclear bomb. Americans actually destoryed a ship that carried enriched nuclear materials.


 Really? I would like to learn more about that


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But being Japanese it wasnt exactly hard to take out.


 Actually it was armoured :robot:


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

Doesn't look bad in flight, nice pic


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I find it at best dubious. The Ki-43-I Hayabusa was, at best, armed with one Ho-103 12.7mm with ~300 rounds, and one 7.7mm mg with ~500 rounds. Given the description, there just doesn't seem to be enough ammo to support it. B-24's could generally take a lot of 12.7 mm hits, and a tremendous number of 7.7mm hits.
> 
> I'd have to see confirmation of the losses on that date to believe it. The Japanese were notorious for false kill claims.
> 
> ...


 Well i agree that it seems unlikely because of his lack of armament, but the man claims he actually saw them crash! not just smoke. And i have respect for Japanese aces 8)


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> This bad boy was supposed to be under development at the end of the war!
> Its the Nakajima G10N1 Fugaku (Mount Fuji). It never got off the drawing board though.
> 
> The Japanese did have at least one 4 engined heavy bomber during the whole war! It was the Nakajima G5N1 Shinzan (Mountain Recess). There were 6 built in the 40 or 41. They were configured to be heavy bombers but served the entire time as transports!!
> ...


 Mountain recess  lol


----------



## GT (Mar 20, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

GT said:


> I disagree, Ki 84was extremely fast, it could outstrip the Mustang at low altitudes and Ki 84s tremendous speed at low altitudes made it even more effective.The 2 20mm cannons and 2 heavy-machine guns gave it a good punch and the rate of fire with the 20 mm cannon gave it one of the best hitting power of all a/c armed with double 20mm. Hayate had also excellent maneuverability and the captured Ki-u84-1a could out climb and outmaneuver the P-47 and P-51 tested against.



Again I have to point out the Ki-84 tested by the USAAF was rebuilt using an American fuel system and other modifications and using high-grade US fuel. It was a design test of the airframe, not the engine.

The Ho-5 was one of the weakest 20mm's of WWII. It's initial velocity was a low 730 m/s, and its ballistic qualities were poor. By 300 meters it had lost over 35% of its velocity, taking a half second to get that far. By 500 meters it had lost 50% of its velocity, taking a full second to reach that range. It also fired a rather small round, 79 grams for the HEI shell, meaning it only packed about 5-6 grams of payload. The Ho-5 was just a .50 BMG necked up to 20mm with a slightly smaller case. Because of this it is generally recorded as having the same RoF but this is dubious as the gun has less relative working energy. This gun was not nearly as good as you are making it out to be - at 1000 foot range its rounds would quite likely bounce off Hellcats, Corsairs, or P-47's (all of which had double thick skins). Japanese fusing was also the worst of any nation, so bad that they often used unfused HE rounds packed with PETN which is so unstable it detonated on contact. It was not uncommon for these rounds to detonate in the gun.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> Chiron said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I heard that during the last stage of war, Japan was acutally developing their own nuclear bomb. Americans actually destoryed a ship that carried enriched nuclear materials.
> ...



That's a negative. Two u-boats were dispatched carrying barrels of un-enriched uranium-oxide powder heading for Japan at the very end of the war. When the Germans surrendered the u-boats were still en-route - one chose to surrender (there is even a movie about it, the sub happened to be named U-235), and the other was sunk before it reached Japan.

The uranium was carried was not enriched.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But being Japanese it wasnt exactly hard to take out.



Actually the Ki-84 was well armored for a Japanese plane. It had a very thick 13mm steel seat-bucket. This was some of the thickest fighter armor of the war - but it was made of very soft steel, it was pounded into shape using hammers which cannot be done with hardened rolled steel. It also had a thick peice of armor glass, but this was situated inside the canopy and had poor transparancy and was almost always removed - the pilot perfering to be able to see over being protected from forward fire. It also had self sealing fuel tanks, but Japanese self-sealing tanks were rather poor and ineffective.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 20, 2005)

The "Panama channel Bomber"


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

It was an interesting concept. In late 1944 the IJA wanted to use these to drop plague bombs on San Diego and other W. Coast cities. The IJN would not go along with it - not for moral reasons, simply because they hated the IJA!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 20, 2005)

[quote="RG_Lunatic]the sub happened to be named U-235), and the other was sunk before it reached Japan.[/quote]
Somebody in the KM had a sense of humour


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Mar 20, 2005)

I always thought it was petty how the IJN and IJA pitted against each other all the time. Each had their own atomic bomb programs and such... they might have got somewhere if they'd cooperated! 

Anyway RG care to explain PETN??


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

*Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)* is in many ways similar to *cyclonite (RDX)*, but it is even less stable in its pure form. Usually, like RDX, it is mixed with TNT (and sometimes wax) to form the explosive *pentolite*, which provides stability (and more power than pure TNT). It is also used as the core explosive in primacord fuses used in demolitions and as a booster charge for blasting. PETN is an "initiating explosive", meaning it it quite sensitive to heat, friction, or percussion. By comparison, TNT and Black Powder are considered non-initiating explosives, requiring some kind of initiator or much more significant levels of heat, friction, or percussion to set them off. They are considered seperate classes of explosives for this reason.

The Japanese used this explosive in their HE rounds because it didn't requre a fuse so a little more HE could be stuffed into the shell. It was known to sometimes explode in the barrel or feed mechanism, espeically if there was a jam or misfire, or if the gun got hot.

Like nitro, it is also used in pill form as a vasodialator for treatment of chest pain  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Mar 21, 2005)

Update.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

The Japanese Airforce was indeed impresive...but what I find the most moving was it's pilots...they were the most dedicated pilots the world has ever seen(I truly respect the Kamikaze pilots...they gave their life for their country...no other pilot had the heart to make the ultimate sacrifice). Of course they took it to the extreme with recognising the ones that completed their missions and disshoner the ones that failed in their attempts... The planes weren't heavily armed or protected because they would fill them up with explosive... A sunken enemy ship was far more important than one single plane... The reenforced armour would have been a minus, making the results of the impact less severe...


----------



## GT (Mar 21, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

GT said:


> Let´s leave the Us testing and see what combat history the Hayate had. The Army fighters Ki-84-1as that fought in Leyte with 1, 11 22, 29, 51, 52, 71, 72 and 200th Sentais and proved itself to be a redoubtable adversary and Ki 841a could out-climb and outmaneuver all Allied fighters, and at medium and low altitude it was as fast as the P-51D and P-47D and Ki 84 1a was faster than all other Allied aircraft's.
> 
> Because the Hayate was so enthusiastically received by operational pilots the improved Ki 84 was fitted with various models of the Ha-45, culminating in the model 23 (Ha-45-23) a modification of the more common Army Type 4 Model (Ha-45-21), fitted with a low-pressure fuel injection-system engine and that was after the operations in the Philippines. GT



Leaving out the Ki-84 rebuilt at the Middletown Air Depot in Pennsylvanial and tested using 140 av-gas at Clark field, the performance of the plane was:

392 mph @ 20,080 feet, cruising speed was 277 mph, and climb to 16,405 feet was 5 mins 54 secs. Ceiling was 34,450 feet, and range was 1,347 miles (with drop tank).

Ten Sentais were equiped with the Ki-84 in the Philapines and were soundly defeated by US fighters. There is no huge spike in US losses to indicate this was a "super plane" as you describe it to be.

The Frank did do moderately well in the China theater, where it faced P-40's and relatively few P-51A's and very few P-51B's of General Chennault's 14th Air Force.

As for being faster than the US planes, it was faster than the P-40, but slower than the P-51, which was capable of 405 mph on the deck (using +25 lbs boost). Climbrate of the P-51B was 6 mins 20 seconds to 20,000 feet, making it somewhat superior in climb over the Frank. The P-51D, fully loaded with fuel (-25 gallons in the rear tank) climbed to 20k in 7.3 minutes, making it about equal to the Frank. The F4U-1d of 1944 equaled or exceeded the Ki-84 in almost every catagory except low speed turn, and the F4U-4 exeeded it in every catagory except low speed turn. The low pressure fuel system of the Franks worked poorly, and was known to cut out spontaneously, especially in turns, largely negating the "turn advantage" this plane was supposed to have. High altitude performance was poor.

Finally, while much better armored than earlier Japanese fighters, the Ki-84 was still not a rugged aircraft by comparision with US fighters. The 12-13 mm seat bucket is hand pounded and welded from obviousluy mild steel. The armor glass was virtually always removed so the pilot could actually see forward. The self-sealing fuel tanks were of little use against .50 class ammo. And finally, the plane was of light construction making it generally suceptable to quick damage from .50 class hits.

The Frank was a big improvement over earlier Japanese aircraft, but it still didn't even the playing field vs. the first line US fighters it faced.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Mar 31, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

i love all these animations you have..........


----------



## GT (Mar 31, 2005)

Update.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 6, 2005)

Other interesting Ki-84, but project only.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

sweet.......


----------



## GT (Apr 7, 2005)

Update.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Whats going on with the canopy arrangement on the port side though?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 7, 2005)

A twin Ki-84, eh? Interesting. I've never come across that one before.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 7, 2005)

There is no much available, only I noe that the projected ceiling was 13000 meters and it have 2 x 1890 hp engines.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

> Whats going on with the canopy arrangement on the port side though



proberly for a second crew member, an observer or nagivator of some kind...........


----------



## GT (Apr 7, 2005)

Update.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 7, 2005)

WWW.Warbirds.jp


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 15, 2005)

Very neat profiles of A6Ms:

The upper is the first prototipe equipped with 2 blade propeller.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

sweet.......


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 19, 2005)

Last version of Ki-45.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 19, 2005)

> Well, as I told you we would look at the combat record:



Okay.

Between 16 February and 15 August 1945, F6F results in aerial combat against the Ki-84 were: 109 shot down, 14 probables, and 21 damaged. F6F losses to Ki-84 were 12. 

Between 26 February and 15 August 1945, F4U results in aerial combat against the Ki-84 were: 21 shot down, 2 probables, and 4 damaged. F4U losses to Ki-84 were 4.


Rich


----------



## Smokey (Jun 20, 2005)

Did you know that originally Mitsubishi were going to give the Betty 4 engines, but the air force leadership demanded it have 2 engines (presumably so more could be made).

This is the most impressive Japanese aircraft of ww2 i've heard of.
There were plans for a jet version.
http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/shinden/
http://www.italiankits.it/doratij7w1.html




http://www.geocities.jp/jp_j7w1_shinden/index.html#new


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

Nice sites Smokey!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 20, 2005)

And, if its real, great photo too! 8)


----------



## bogy (Jun 28, 2005)

"Japanese were (are) simply copy cats; their technology were simply derived largely from others (German) and with little mdification" That's not true! For example, A6M - Zero fighter was made from something special, name "ESD" - EXTRA SUPER DURAL - a material unic in the world. It was a special Duraluminium, with special molecular configuration - it was something very easy and that confer for Zero fighter extra maneovrability!

The Nakajima Ki 84 was the best fighter in ww2. That fighter use special gasolin because that fighter have a special engine. It was the best!!!

The japanese pilots are the best pilots in ww2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I dont think that to many people will agree with you on some of your points.

As for the copy cat thing I do agree with you, that distinction goes to the Russians. However even that Duraluminium did not help the Zero and it still got beat.

I do not agree the Ki-84 was the best aircraft of WW2. Not when compared to the Spit, P-47, and Fw-190. The Ki-84 never reached its full potential do to a lack of construction materials and poor production quality. Performance wise it was not the greatest either compared to the Spit, P-47, and Fw-190 either except for its range.

Crew: one, pilot 
Length: 9.93 m (32 ft 7 in) 
Wingspan: 11.23 m (36 ft 10 in) 
Height: 3.38 m (11 ft 1 in) 
Wing area: 21 m² (226 ft²) 
Empty: 2,665 kg (5,864 lb) 
Loaded: 3,616 kg (7,955 lb) 
Maximum takeoff: 3,898 kg (8,576 lb) 
Powerplant: 1x Nakajima Ha-45-21 18-cylinder radial, 1,485 kW (1,990 hp) 

Performance
Maximum speed: 627 km/h (392 mph) 
Range: 2,155 km (1,347 miles) 
Service ceiling: 10,500 m (34,450 ft) 
Rate of climb: 833 m/min (2,734 ft/min) 
Wing loading: 172 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²) 
Power/Mass: 0.41 kW/kg (0.25 hp/lb) 

Armament
2x 12.7 mm Type 1 machine guns in fuselage 
2x 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wings 
2x 250 kg (551 lb) bombs 

Production
Total production: 3,514 examples 
3,288 by Nakajima 
94 by Mansyu 

Japan had some great pilots too however I would not call them the best pilots of WW2. I do not see any distinction that can compare them to the aces of Germany, The US, and England.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

exept perhaps in terms of ferocity, they were defending their homeland and honour, they were defending a huge mility tradition as well as their homes and families......


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The pilots were good, there's no doubt about that but their main advantage was the Western ignorance of their culture and design. Had the Western world taken the Japanese seriously from the start, they would have never achieved anything near what they did. 

The Japanese air forces also lacked tactical thinking, they were too close to the samurai code. They fought as individuals _expecting_ to fight against individuals.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Agreed with the points both you made. The Japanese releid to much on code and tradition and they let that get in there way, however they were good pilots that is true.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2005)

It should also be remembered that the Japs were not compared against the best available. In timeline re introduction into service the Zero was most similar to the FW190. Good as the Zero is, if I had the choice of going to war in a Zero or a 190 it would be the 190 every time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Agreed. The 190 had better armament, more armour, great performance and was quite maneuverble. Where as the Zero had speed and maneuverable. Id go with the 190 also over a Zero.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Certainly against the British forces the Japanese aviation went against second hand and out-dated equipment. The IJAAF or IJN didn't meet the Spitfire until 1943!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Again that is because Englands focus was Germany.


----------



## bogy (Jun 29, 2005)

The best pilots in WW2 was:
British, German, Romanian and Japanese.

I'm sorry but the American pilots was good because they are in large numbers. The supremacy was 20 / 1 in 1944.

In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!

In 1944, 23 august the Americans came here, in Romania to take the American prisoners buck. When they landing, our pilots was sidereted: American pilots don't now how to fly. They " ups a Daisy"!

Our very best pilot, Bazu Cantacuzino - 84 aerial victory - have make a historic flight in Italy, Fogia with his Me 109 G10 taking Colonel Gun with him, to take him there.
When Hi's arrive there, the colonel want to fly the Messerschmidt. Hi try but hi crash the aircraft. Our pilot try to give them some advises but hi don't lessened. OK with that but now the problem was that Bazu have no plane. The Americans give them one P51B - name "Sleepy Anne".

Bazu make a spectacular take of and make a impressive acrobatic demonstration. Note that it was for the first time in flight with a P51!!!

About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.

About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!

Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed. In aerial battles both speed and maneuverability are important. With speed, Me 109 can accept or not the dog-fight and dictate the fight conditions!

Now, about A6m-Zero. The American pilots was advise that too not accept a dog-fight with Japanese zero! In 1942, after the Midway U.S Army captured a A6M Zero in good conditions. They take the plane in California and make some test. In conclusion, at that time the U.S.A.A.F. have no plane capable to sustain a dog-fight with Japanese zero. So, the Americans H.Q. Make some directives and one of that directive say that the American fighter will not engage directly the Japanese zero, they will attack from Hy and they will open fire and going down - because zero was a very light aircraft, Japanese will can't going down to catch American aircraft. The official recommendation was that the Japanese zero will be hunted with "passing throw"!

In 1942 - 1943 it was a really "Zero Phobia"! In 1943, when F6F Hellcat was introduce in service, Japanese introduce in service the A6M5 52 models - Zero. That model was equal with F6F - Hellcat!

The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

bogy said:


> In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!



Your point being, Germans shot down Americans too even though the US had numerical supremacy, but that does not mean the American pilots were not good. American pilots recieved great training had aircraft just as good.




bogy said:


> About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.



So are you saying that the Fw-190A was not good and the Fw-190D was was? Yes the Dora was better but the Anton was one of the best aircraft.



bogy said:


> About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!



Please tell me you are not serious that the Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of the Spitfire. The Luftwaffe lost it for several reasons and none of them because of the Spitfire. They lost it because they changed there strategy from destroying the Luftwaffe to destroying London, big Mistake! The lost it because of the Hurricane not because of the Spitfire. The Spitfire was numerically strong eneogh to change the outcome of the BoB. Yes the Spitfire played a role in the BoB but even the British will tell you that the Hurricane was the real hero of the BoB. Thirdly they lost it because of the British Radar network. It allowed crews to stay on the ground and then be vectored to the Enemy.



bogy said:


> Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed.



Both the Spitfire and the Bf-109E were pretty equal in speed. The difference was the Bf-109E had bad low speed maneavuerabilty but at high speeds she would turn with the best of them. 



bogy said:


> The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
> The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.



Okay first of all the Americans did not win the war. The *Allies* won the war together. Each making there own very big contributions. The Americans were just as good at fighting than any other force out there!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 29, 2005)

There was also no model of Zero that was an equal to the Hellcat. Especially when it comes to the ability to sustain damage. The Zero did have the manueverability edge below 275 MPH, but above that, the zero does not have the capability to manuever. There is nothing wrong with the tactics used to battle the Zero, it was effective and it worked.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2005)

The U.S pilots were only fearful of the Zero because they knew nothing about it. It wasn't an equal of the F6F Hellcat, the F4F was enough to deal with a Zero. If you had two F4F Wildcats against four A6M Zero, the Wildcats using the 'thatch and weave' would come out on top almost everytime. 

You cannot possibly state where the best pilots came from without taking into account the feeling of a nation and the state it was in. The U.S and Britain were free democractic nations with some thought for their troops lives and well-being, they didn't grind them into the ground. That is why the two major democracies don't seem to have high killing pilots. On top of that there were more Western Allied pilots, giving each their own share while the higher scoring aces weren't so far ahead. 

Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union cared little about the lives of their own people, it was fight to the death or until you win. They were flying massive sortie numbers and they would often willingly ram other aircraft!

The U.S ground troops weren't very good, no but that didn't matter. The U.S knew perfectly well how to use what it had, a massive economy. It didn't bother spending time training it's troops to the abilities of the German soldiers (who were the best in World War 2), it used it's massive economic backing to perfection by the doctrine of 'fire supremecy'. 
If any blocking situation was encountered massive artillery and air support could be brought down on the target to wipe it clean of enemy before the massive amounts of armour moved in. All German commanders knew that W.Allied artillery was vastly superior to their own by weight of numbers alone.

Admittedly in a lot of circumstances the W.Allied forces would have suffered less and moved on much quicker had they been more aggressive but overall the war was won with little loss to the W.Allies. They played the war well. 

If you want to start going on about how poor the U.S troops were, try looking at the Romanian troops at Stalingrad...

The Allies won the war, not the U.S. It was a joint effort and without any one of the 'Big Three' the war could have turned out much different.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 29, 2005)

Agreed, plan_d. It was a group effort. The Americans didn't win the war. America was only part of the overall effort on behalf of ALL the allies that led to final victory.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

Some people dont realize the contributions made by each country. Each had there own things to give and each what they were "experts" in. Either way you look at the war could not have been won without each other. Where would the US have based there bombers out of to bomb Germany with had it not been for England? What would the Russians have done with out lend lease? Would the US had been able to sustain a Night and Day bombing campaign without the British? Each made great contributions.

And on your comment Plan_D about the Romanian troops. I agree and besides who was it that switched sides as soon as the going got tough for them: US, England, or Romania. If I recall it was the Romanians that left the Axis once they saw that the Allies were going to win. Jumpin on the old band wagon!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Italy done the same. Damn smart, them Italians 8)


----------



## bogy (Jun 30, 2005)

You accuse Romania because they switched sides? Where was the American and Brit when Germans sold our country? Where was American and Brit when Germans make pact with soviet union and sold our Eastern territory? Why don't accuse Soviet Union because they switched sides? They were Allies with Germans and attack Finland, Poland and Romania and after that they were your Allies.

What do you now about Stalingrad? My grand father was there and sow everything! He sow the German soothing Romanian "Allies" when they try to retreat in trucks with German "Allies".

Yes I now that victory was a joint effort but I was talking about the Americans and about their fighting stile.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

bogy said:


> You accuse Romania because they switched sides? Where was the American and Brit when Germans sold our country? Where was American and Brit when Germans make pact with soviet union and sold our Eastern territory? Why don't accuse Soviet Union because they switched sides? They were Allies with Germans and attack Finland, Poland and Romania and after that they were your Allies.



Okay now this is getting way way off topic. This is supposed to be about Japanese aviation here. I will stand on my soap box one more time though and then I am done and hopefully this can get back on topic.



bogy said:


> What do you now about Stalingrad? My grand father was there and sow everything! He sow the German soothing Romanian "Allies" when they try to retreat in trucks with German "Allies".



My grandfather was at Stalingrad also. In fact he was wounded and captured there so I know quite a bit about it, actually!



bogy said:


> Yes I now that victory was a joint effort but I was talking about the Americans and about their fighting stile.



There was nothing bad about the American fighting style, actually. They were trained very well and could fight against anyone. They may not have been the best soldiers in the war but they were just as good as anyone. Tell the boys who scaled Point du Hoc in Normandy or stormed the beaches there, tell the boys who fought at the Battle of the Bulge, tell the boys that fought in Iwo Jima or Guadal Canal that they were not good fighters. 

There now I am finished and am getting off of my soap box.


----------



## bogy (Jun 30, 2005)

I am sorry but I speak about fighters, not about infantry. About infantry, I now and I angry with that, American infantry was the best, and was, no doubt about that. They prove that in Normandy, they prove that in Iwo Jima, Guadalacanal, Okinawa, Tarawa, in Corea, in Vietnam, etc.

in fact I am a little bit filo American and i don't wanna be upset in this discussion. In fact this must be a friendly discussion, OK?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

No one here is trying to upset you but you have to also respect other peoples ideas and thoughts also just like everyone else has to also. Maybe things came across wrong but know one here is trying to lash out at you or your country.

As a matter of fact things have to be taken with a grain of salt here and everyone has to be thick skinned, or things can get out hand quickly.


----------



## bogy (Jul 1, 2005)

OK, I've got the idea. Let be friends and let's talk friendly. It's OK by me, I have nothing against American fighters but that's my opinion - they have fought very well in infantry, artillery, tanks, navy, marines but I considered that in air, there are fighters much better then Americans.

The problem was that ,no doubt, P51 was the best fighter in ww2. They have the best aircraft at that time, with strongest engines and armament.

I don't now if the Americans have a fighters like Molders or Hartman or Lipfert or Cantacuzino or Dobran or Serbanescu. No offense but I am not convince about that.

What do You think about Soviet Fighters? And about their aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2005)

Bob Johnson (P-47 pilot) had the same kill rate as Molders. We had our aces like Bong and Mcguire.


----------



## bogy (Jul 1, 2005)

By the way, I don't say that Fw 190 A was not good, I just say that Fw Dora 9 was the best. End I considered that Fw 190D9 was the best German fighter in ww2. I don't now why because Fw 190have a Junkers jumo engine and Fw190A have a BMW engine and I now that BMW engine was better then Junker Jumo.

Anyway, I have a beautiful kit machete of FW 190A4 at 1:48 in Fujimy - it is Heinz Barr's Fw 190A4.


----------



## bogy (Jul 1, 2005)

"Bob Johnson (P-47 pilot) had the same kill rate as Molders. We had our aces like Bong and McGuire."

Yes Flyboy, I now that, Your country have good aces, you have Ira Kepford, Pappy Boigton, etc and I recognize that.

If I don't wrong, Mcguire have flight on F6F Hellcat name "Minsii" ? And Kepford on F4 U Corsair numbered 29 white.


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 1, 2005)

Bogy

That's Cmdr. David McCampbell who flew Grumman F6F Hellcat "Minsi" with 34 kills and Maj. Thomas McGuire flew Lockheed P-38 Lighting with 38 kills before he was KIA.

Yes, Lt. (jg) Ira "Ike" Kepford fly Vought F4U-1A Corsair with white 29 while he made 16 kills during the war.


----------



## bogy (Jul 1, 2005)

Oh yes, Thomas McGuire flew Lockheed P-38 Lighting name "padgy" or something like that, in New Guinea


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 1, 2005)

That would be "Pudgy", Bogy 

He was killed in combat while attempting to snap roll onto the tail of a Japanese fighter without dropping his external fuel (carrying two 160 gallon of gas), that lead McGuire into a flat spin from which he was unable to recover or bail out.


----------



## bogy (Jul 1, 2005)

Hey, people, what do you think about Saburo Sakai or Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, Tetsuzo Iwamoto, Sada-aki Akamatsu, Takeo Tanimizu, Shoichi Sugita, Kaneyoshi Muto?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I think we just had a misunderstanding bogy and nothing else. It actually happens quite a bit on this forum between people. Any how welcome to the site anyway.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

U.S infantry weren't the best, German infantry was and there was a very good reason for that. But keep on topic...if you want to argue about that, start a thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Agreed about the thread and agreed about the infantry Plan_D.


----------



## bogy (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes, I'm agree with that, in infantry American soldiers were the best. They were the best because the gear, training and the spirit. They fought like a team.

But in special assignments The Brit commandos were the best.

German soldier were very discipline man, they obey orders, they were good to, but not as good as Americans and Brit.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2005)

No, you've mis-read what I stated. I said the German infantry were the best, they were the best by far. They were aggressive, disciplined and thoughtful. 

The only U.S units anywhere near the ability of the German standard infantry were the Rangers and Airborne. The British had the Airborne and Marines in Europe. 

The British were the pioneer of special operations and throughout the world there were several experienced British units and specialised units like the SAS, LRDG, Chindits and Commandos...

But in open combat, you cannot beat the German infantry if anywhere nearing equal numbers. If you pitched the 21st Panzer Division against the best Soviet or Allied armoured division on equal numbers, I would put my money on the 21st everytime.


----------



## bogy (Jul 4, 2005)

No, I am not convince about that. I am thinking of U.S. soldier who fought in Guadalcanal. They louse eny C.O. and they fought without officers and they beat the Jap's. They have a strong spirit. 

I remember a story, wrote in a book about Guadalcanal by general in rezerv Grifitt III or something like that. It's about a man, name Mike "the red" and his men. One time they remain without drink and they were go to the jap's positions to stol some. There, they stol all the drink they found bat they put some bombs on the jap's guns and ... they find and stol the underweare of the jap's general.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2005)

I don't really care if you're not convinced. The Japanese were clumsy soldiers, they only survived because of Western ignorance to them in the early years. 

Look what happened in 1939, in Khalkin-Gol, when the Soviet Union easily defeated the Japanese on open plain. The German troops were superior to every other soldier in World War 2, they wouldn't matter about losing their C.O, they could start the battle without their C.O! 

If you want to continue this, then start a thread in WW2 General forum. And I'll tell you some stories about U.S Vs. German actions...


----------



## bogy (Jul 4, 2005)

No, you've mis-read what I have wrote. I don't speak about jap's soldiers, I have spoke about American soldiers on Guadalcanal


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2005)

No, I haven't mis-read at all. Guadalcanal had JAPANESE on it, of whom the U.S were fighting.


----------



## bogy (Jul 4, 2005)

"The Japanese were clumsy soldiers". I have serious doubt about that. In Tarawa Americans have 20.000 men down. In Okinawa they have lost 60.000 men!

I think that japs are good soldiers. Not the best but good.

In war with Germans, Americans have never casualties as they have in Pacific!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2005)

The Japanese were clumsy soldiers, especially with the equipment they had. They only have their reputation from fighting to the death, they suffered heavy casualties in the process. They were not efficient soldiers, they were not capable soldiers. 

The U.S troops fighting against the Wehrmacht were halted. You cannot base your opinion on losses. The Wehrmacht halted and countered the U.S troops many times with great success. The U.S used fire supremecy against the Wehrmacht, something they could not bring fully to bare on the small islands in the Pacific. The Japanese also had built a vast network of tunnels which led to more hand to hand combat, in which naturally the U.S soldier is stronger. 

The Wehrmacht had the greatest soldiers in World War 2. They knew what to do, when to do it and how to do it. They also could fight against any style, having to fight on two fronts against two vastly different fighting styles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Im with Plan_D on this. I think there is a big misunderstanding here. The US soldiers fought well and good heart but I agree that the German soldiers were the best disiplined and were the best on the ground. Just ask any WW2 allied vet and they will all tell you this. The Wehrmacht was very resourcefull and was a threat until the very end. Look at the Battle of the Bulge. They were extremely outnumbered and almost beat the US back. Yes weather had a lot to do with it, but the Wehrmacht fought very well. Look at the Afrika Korps. Under Rommels command they did miricles at first with just about nothing.

The Japanese inflicted so many casualties on the allies mainly because of the Jungle type warfare. 

And bogy one reason why there were more US casualties in the Pacific than in Europe was because the US had been fighting in the Pacific as early as 1942 on land. The US did not land in Europe until 1943 in Italy an N. Afrika.. The war ended in 1945. So lets see Pacific: 3 years of ground fighting, Europe: 2 years of Ground fighting.


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 6, 2005)

German soldiers were on speed. They handed out amphetimies like candy.

Defense is easier than offense - this holds true in both Europe and the Pacific.

The Japanese has inferior equipment but they still put up a staunch defense once the Banzai charge against machine guns was finally recognized as a total waste (Tarawa, Iwo, Okinawa). Japanese rifles, machine guns, and artillary were all inferior to their American counterparts, and they had no effective anti-tank infantry weapons beyond the satchel charge. To defeat US tanks, they'd burry a man in a hole with a rock and a 500 lbs bomb and have him wait for a tank to drive over the hole!

Given the numerical disadvange, equipment, and the huge firepower advantage provided by the USN in the late island battles in the PTO, I'd say the Japanese did extremely well. Faced with the same conditions there is little doubt German units (or US units for that matter) would have surrendered when Japanese units did not. The Japanese, like the Soviets, placed very little value on individual life, and thus were able to extract losses beyond what the other powers typically could for a given situation.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

I have heard of German soldiers being doped up on methamphetamine to give them "superhuman" qualities.



> Many of the Wehrmacht's soldiers were high on Pervitin when they went into battle, especially against Poland and France -- in a Blitzkrieg fueled by speed. The German military was supplied with millions of methamphetamine tablets during the first half of 1940. The drugs were part of a plan to help pilots, sailors and infantry troops become capable of superhuman performance. The military leadership liberally dispensed such stimulants, but also alcohol and opiates, as long as it believed drugging and intoxicating troops could help it achieve victory over the Allies. But the Nazis were less than diligent in monitoring side-effects like drug addiction and a decline in moral standards.
> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,354606,00.html



And I agree about the Japanese troops as well.


----------



## arras (Jul 6, 2005)

Plan_D ..


> Certainly against the British forces the Japanese aviation went against second hand and out-dated equipment. The IJAAF or IJN didn't meet the Spitfire until 1943!


Actualy already Zeros met Spitfires over Singapore ...and shot them down imediately (as was wroten by Australian pilot there)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Yes but what kind of Spits were they.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

Spitfires did not reach the CBI until 1943 - when Spitfire V and VIII arrived. 

The German troops were superior to the Japanese in combat. What drugs they were on means nothing - they were tactically capable in every aspect and they did not need their C.O. 

The Japanese did not surrender but they also lost with very high loss. Not surrending doesn't always make you a good soldier, especially in a unit. The Wehrmacht troops were the best in the world because, as I've said, they knew where to do it, how to do it, when to do it and they didn't need the guidance of their C.O. 

You have to take into account the defensive situation of the Japanese troops. Dense jungle with tunnel networks - had they been in any of the positions the German troops found themselves in, the Japanese would have been crushed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Agreed on all your points you just made. Many allied veterans will agree with what you just said abou the Wehrmacht and it has been documented in interviews.


----------



## arras (Jul 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet >>> I was reading it in book about Zero by one american author, I can look at it during weekend and post more next week.

It happened during air battles over Singapore at the begining of war, that may tell more about type of Spitfre.
One Australian pilot which took part in those battles on Brevster Buffalo describe way in which Commonwealth fighters were masacred by Zeros. Then Hurricanes and Spitfires arived and British pilots took them up to repel Japanese attack. They used the same tactic as they used in Europe ...and result was as author predicted another masacre.

Japanese aviation was very advanced during years of ww2 ...on par with other waring sides. Zero was probably the best fighter in the world in time it apeared over China for the firsth time. At the begining of war in Pacific it won control over skyes for Japanese in respectiful way and kept it for firsth 1-2 years. G3M and G4M were also good medium bombers and served well until Zeros maintained control of skyes.

It is not true that Japanese doctrine called for range and maneurability. Japanese armed forces were divided in to army and navy. For navy range was very important and for good reason.
Army on the other hand never builded aircrafts with big range. Army doctrine was oriented against Chinese and Russians on the continent, for that they did not need range ...and that cripled army air forces in conflict over Pacific. Their aircrafts lacked range and pilots navigation training.

Japanese disadvantages in war were thin industrial base which was totaly orientated to weapon production. They had to make their aircrafths using tools imported from abroad because their own industry was not able to produce them.
Another problem was that they spreaded their human and industrial resources in too large area. They were developing too many identical aircraft types or were loosing time on improving old models instedat of developing new ones. If they would concentrate their limited resources they would be probably more succesful.
And the last thing was way they trained pilots and technical personels. They trained small group of elite pilots ...not a good strategy for prolonged conflict.


----------



## arras (Jul 7, 2005)

Just interesting site about Imperial Japanese Navy:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm
I was already posting it on this forum, so just in case....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I was not debating it.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2005)

Arras. As mentioned by others there were no Spitfires over Singapore. Also the Zero wasn't the best fighter in the war at that time. It appears that way as it was up against hand me downs or obsolete planes. 
The nearest plane timeline wise to the Zero was the 190 and there is no doubt which was the best between these two.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

Please don't hold us in suspense, arras. What squadrons used the Spitfire over Singapore? 

The Zero was a good fighter - there's no doubt about that - however it had the benefit of surprise and Western ignorance. A Spitfire would easily be able to defeat a Zero if used properly - the Spitfire could just keep up it's pace while the Zero would be left standing. The only decent aspects of a Zero are range, low-speed turning and a decent climb. 

The Japanese Army was concentrated on holding the gains in South-East Asia. You'll find that their aircraft were more than adequete for the job against the second priority Allied Air Forces.


----------



## arras (Jul 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet >> excuse me, second part was not directed on you, I was just describing my opinion about topic in general.

Glider >> Zero appeared in combat earlier than Fw190 and in that time it was the best fighter arircraft in my eyes.

plan_D >> I don't have book at hand. I will ho home this weekend and I'll post more details then


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

The Zero and Fw-190 were not far apart in the combat arena. The Zero 21 was only tested over China - it did not fight in large numbers. The real baptism of fire was Pearl Harbour and related incidents in the CBI during the late 1941. The Fw-190 saw it's first combat service in July 1941.


----------



## arras (Jul 8, 2005)

Glider >>


> It appears that way as it was up against hand me downs or obsolete planes.


P-39, P-40 and Wildcat were firsth line aircrafths in US navy and army. Huricane was second best fighter of Britain. There was Huricane II used in pacific.

plan_D >> Zero was fighting ower China not only "tested".


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

It was only tested in China before 1941 - the Zero was an IJN fighter not an IJAAF fighter. The Japanese forces would have been using the Oscar in China, not the Zero. 

The P-39 and P-40 were obselete planes. They were poor performers, both of them. The Hurricane was a second hand plane, everything that went to the CBI was second hand from Europe. 

Also, stop calling it the 'Pacific' there were two theatres in which the Japanese were fought. There was the China-Burma-India and Pacific Theatre of Operations. They're different theatres. 

The Japanese were up against Western ignorance and second-hand equipment. The CBI received the lowest priority of equipment - and second priority in men.


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2005)

Arras, I don't need to say much as PlanD has it covered. 
In Jan 1942 the Hurricane was definately second line. Spit 5's were common and the Spit 9 entered service by May 42. Typhoons were in service and whilst no fighter, in GA it would have been deadly and the Japs wouldn't have caught one very easily. As a bomber destroyer it could have caused significant damage and at low altitude a real handful. Mossies were entering service and how a 320mph Zero is going to catch a Mossie would be interesting to know.
There is no doubt that the Zero was not the best fighter of its time and had it faced the 1st line RAF planes would have struggled.


----------



## arras (Jul 8, 2005)

About P-39, P-40 and Wildcat I can just repeat only what I already sad, those were first line fighters during first half of war in Pacific. If you know about different (better) US fighter, pleas let us know, that will be something really new to know -not for me only.
Hurricane was sill used by British in Europe and Africa and I would not call it “second hand aircraft” in 1941.

As for Typhons, Moskitos and Spitfire9 ...that is already at last one and half year away from Pearl Harbor and more than 2 years away from Zero introduction and I am not going to debate it since I was speaking about 1940 and 1941.



As for “testing” Zero in China, I must disagree:

firsth combat flight in China:
on August 19 1940, 12 Zeros escorting bombers to Chunking
firsth battle:
on September 13 1940, 13 Zeros against 27 I-15 and I-16 over Chunking, all Chinese fighters shot down without loos of single Zero.

Until end of 1940 153 A6M were sent to China, destroying 59 Chinese aircrafts in air + 42 on ground without looses.

Before beginning of war in Pacific A6M made 70 combat flights in to Chinese territory with 529 aircrafths. 99 Chinese aircrafths were shot down with 2 Zeros lost to AA fire.

That doesn’t look like “testing”. Japanese started war in Pacific with only 400 Zeros. Mostly A6M2.



About Australian pilot I was little bit wrong so I must correct:

Book is ZERO FIGHTER by Martin Caidin, 1969 (I have translation not original)

It was Gregory Board flying Brewster Buffalo in 21th wing during defence of Singapore. He described hove British pilots in new Hurricanes (not Spitfires) which just arrived on cargo ships from England were all shot down when trying to fight Zeros in European style dogfight.

Later author (Caidin) write: “elite group of Spitfires with veteran pilots from Europe” was sent by British to Asia. In 2 battles 17 from 27 Spitfires were lost against only 2 Zeros. There is no place, time and Spitfire type specified but it was in 1942. He then quote Claire Chennault commenting whole thing as result of bad tactic of RAF pilots, trying to battle Zeros in a way they were used to fight in Europe …so I think it might have been somewhere in China.


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2005)

Arras
My understanding is that the Zero was ordered into production in July 1940. Pre Production Zero's were in use from August 1940 in China.
At the time of Pearl Harbour only 420 Zero's were active in the Pacific and some units were still flying the A5 waiting to be re equipped.
This tallies with some of the comments your making and mine. Pre production machines in August 1940 in China. During the rest of 1940 the first deliveries would have gone to China because thats where Japan was at war. The I15/I16 may have been worse than the A6, but were a lot better than the A5 and Army machines. Remember that Japan had lost to Russia in Manchuria so knew what they were up against.

However the Navy was still equipping some of its units with Zero's at Pearl Harbour.

As for the comments about Mossies Spits etc I think you may have a misunderstanding re the timeline.

Pearl Harbour December 1941.

In January 1942 105 sqd had Mossies, Spit 5's were common, Typhoons entered service with 56 sqd in Sept 1940
May 1942 Spit 9's entered service.

This is obviously less than 12 - 18 months.

Your comments about the USA aircraft are fair but the USA caught up fast and were very good at amending their tactics to make the best out of their planes. 

I mentioned before the similarity with the 190 timeline wise. By Dec 1941 Germany had produced around 500 FW190 which is pretty close to the Zero. As I have said before, in a contest between the 190 and the Zero I would go for the 190 every time. 
Can I ask why you would go for the Zero?

PS Caldin was wrong, there were no Spitfires over Singapore.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2005)

> About P-39, P-40 and Wildcat I can just repeat only what I already sad, those were first line fighters during first half of war in Pacific. If you know about different (better) US fighter, pleas let us know, that will be something really new to know -not for me only.



_"...different (better) US fighter..."_ The P-38. 




> Hurricane was sill used by British in Europe and Africa and I would not call it “second hand aircraft” in 1941.



The Hurricane II was still in use in Africa (Not Britain) in 1941 - in Britain it was beginning to be phased out as a frontline fighter. The second-hand Hurricane I was sent to the CBI - they were used and old. 



> As for Typhons, Moskitos and Spitfire9 ...that is already at last one and half year away from Pearl Harbor and more than 2 years away from Zero introduction and I am not going to debate it since I was speaking about 1940 and 1941.



As Glider stated all well within the timeframe - the Spitfire V was in wide-spread service in 1941 - it did not reach the CBI until 1943. 

And as Glider said - the Spitfire did not fight over Singapore. The first Spitfires arrived in India in 1943 - they were Spitfire Vb and Spitfire VIII. 

Also, the AVG were in China and India/Burma (retreating from Burma into India, in 1942) - they had one squadron covering Rangoon. The RAF did not operate largely over Chinese lands.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Fighter tactic wise the US was far superior to the Japanese. As some other people have already stated the US was very good at adapting and overcoming in adverse situations.


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2005)

An error in my previous posting. the Typhoon was in Sept 41 not 40


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

So have we ever figured out the Spitfire issue.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2005)

It first arrived in the CBI in November 1943 with 607 and 615 squadrons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Okay I will buy that.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 11, 2005)

Mossies were sent out there to replace the Beaus but they found that the hot and damp conditions weren't good for the planes so late mark Beaus were brought in. Mossies returned in the PR role later in the war though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

Why coudl the mossie not handle the hot damp climate? Was the wood of the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why coudl the mossie not handle the hot damp climate? Was the wood of the aircraft.



Yep - the Isrealis operated them in the late 40s and early 50s. Had tons of problems with them,


----------



## arras (Jul 12, 2005)

Lets compare Spitfire with Zero

A6M2:
performed its first war mission on Augut 19, 1940

Wing load: 107 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 1 680 kg
Weight loaded: 2 410 kg
Specific power: 384 HP / tonne
Maximum speed: 533 kph
Initial climb: 1377 m/min.
Service ceiling: 10 300 meters
Range: 1 867 km
2 x 20mm Type 99 guns (120 rounds)
2 x 7.7mm Type 97 (Navy) machine guns (1000 rounds)

Spitfire II-A:
appeared at the end of 1940

Wing load: 117 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 2 182 kg
Weight loaded: 2 624 kg
Specific power: 448 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 580 kph
Initial climb: 770 m/min.
Service ceiling: ???
Range: 637 km
8 .303" Browning M2 machine guns

A6M2 advantages:
better turning ability: 107 kg/sqm vs 117 kg/sqm
much better climb: 1377 m/min vs only 770 m/min
more than trilpe range: 1 867 km vs 637 km
probably better armament: canoons vs rifle caliber MGs

Spitfire II-A advantages:
higher maximum speed: 580 kph vs 533 kph
probably slightly better in dive 2 624 kg vs 2 410 kg
better defensive equipment: self sealing tanks + armored plate vs nothing

From that we can ques that in dogfight Spitfre would be dead meat since Zero outperform it in both vertical and horizontal maneures. Slight advantage of Zero in armament would be negated by lack of protection and it would be vulnerable even to rifle caliber MGs of Spitfre.
Spitfre would be better in level and probably in dive flight too. Zero can escape in climb.

All in all in my eyes comparism is showing planet to be at last equal.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

The Spitfire IIA being a much faster aircraft in accerlation, speed and dive would enable the Spitfire to easily dictate the fight. The Zero wasn't far superior to the Spitfire in turning - infact, it was only superior up to 275 mph. 

The armament of the Spitfire was more than adequete to deal with the weak Zero. Hawk-75s of the Vichy French Air Force managed to down several Wildcats with six .303 cal - imagine what eight Browning .303 cal would do to a Zero!

The Zero had climb and low-speed turning as the advantage. If the Spitfire was used well - using it's energy correctly with speed advantage and dive advantage, it would make easy meat of a Zero. 

The Zero would have to keep the fight low and slow when engaged.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 12, 2005)

Plus the zero did not have self sealing fuel tanks, so .303s would be fine. Line up a bead on the wing and let the fire do the rest. The dive capability on the zero was bad, the wing cord is thick, so there is alot of drag when diving. I got the dive info from the pilot of the zero in our museum.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

See, things like that aren't something the paper stats tell you.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2005)

My belief is that the Spit IIa had a ceiling of 37,000ft making that around 11,250m
Also the max climb was around 900m/min still a lot less than the Zero but more than indicated. Interestingly the numbers that I have found for time to 20,000 ft are similar. The Zero taking 7.2mins and the Spit IIa 7.0

Re the Zero ammunition for the A6M2 was 60 rounds for the 20mm which was common for all 20mm at the time with the exception of the USSR. Later versions increased the capacity initially to 100rds with the A6M3 then to 120.
The British also had the Spit IIb with 2 x 20 around the end of 1940 which you may want to include in the debate.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2005)

The British had the IB as well but in the case of Zero Vs. Spitfire the Hispano 20 mm aren't needed. Eight Browning .303 cal would be more than enough to down a Zero.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2005)

Don't disagree with you, but extra firepower never hurt anyone (who was firing it)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 12, 2005)

I can tell you from personal experience, the skin on that Zero is realy thin. A well placed bb that could make a spark could penetrate the wing and set that fuel tank on fire. Exaggeration, maybe, but there are parts of the wing that we are NOT allowed to walk on at all. The areas to step are clearly marked in English and Japanese.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I can tell you from personal experience, the skin on that Zero is realy thin. A well placed bb that could make a spark could penetrate the wing and set that fuel tank on fire. Exaggeration, maybe, but there are parts of the wing that we are NOT allowed to walk on at all. The areas to step are clearly marked in English and Japanese.



The man is correct! I took photos of Evan's Zero in an old post comparing the wing skin thickness to other aircraft (Corsair, Mustang, Hellcat). It's built like a Coke can!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 13, 2005)

Hell yeah! Saw a program the other night that demostrated the weakness of the Zero's body panels, not good.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 13, 2005)

A little over-excitement there about the weakness of the Zero - but I think we're all agreed that the Spitfire IIA with eight Browning .303 cal would easily rip a Zero to pieces when hitting it.


----------



## arras (Jul 14, 2005)

-FW-190A-1 apeared in air combat in September 1941

-first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942

-Typhoon plane became operational only in November of 1942

plan_D wrote:


> The Spitfire IIA being a much faster aircraft in accerlation, speed and dive would enable the Spitfire to easily dictate the fight.


 that is hardly possible, Spitfre would not be able to dogfight and it would have dificulties to use energy tactic because of Zero better climb rate. It can use hit and run tactic but that is hardly useful for building air superiority or escort duties.
Its spead advantage is similar to that of Bf-109 over Huricane but Spitfre did not enjoied climbing qualities of Bf.

You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.

Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 14, 2005)

How do you figure the Spitfire couldn't dictate the fight? If the Spitfire saw the situation as unfavourable he could use his superior speed to get away from the Zero - dictating the combat. 

Also, while in combat the energy could be used with a higher speed on entrance to the fight - higher speed during the fight - tighter turn above 275 mph - faster dive and faster acceleration. 

As I said before the Zero would need to get the fight slow and low to defeat the Spitfire - something the Spitfire could easily avoid. 

The Zero superior climb is only off the exact same start point at the exact same speed. The Spitfire would be entering the climb at a higher speed due to higher dive speed - giving the Spitfire more of a jump into the climb. Which would enable it to use energy tactics anyway it wanted. 

The Zero did have superior range - it's range was extremely impressive but the Spitfire was never built for range. It was an interceptor - it was designed as an interceptor. Since Britain was actively on the defensive - range wasn't required. The Zero would be coming to the Spitfire - not the other way around. 

When the Spitfire finally did arrive in the CBI - the Spitfire achieved an eightne kill ratio over the Japanese. Of course not all against the Zero - but it's something to think about.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 14, 2005)

Yes but that extra range has no effect in a dogfight - in effect its probably a disadvantage when dogfighting because of the extra fuel it would be carrying when compared to the short fueled Spitfire (If the Spit was intercepting). 

Yes - The Zero can climb away, the Spitfire can accelerate/dive away. If the Spit pilot keeps his speed up he could easily take the Zero out, as plan_D said. Once on the Zero's tail, it wouldnt have to be for long since one short burst of .303 rounds will penetrate the thin skin, set the fuel tanks on fire and the Zero would be History.

I would have the Spitfire in a dogfight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

arras said:


> -first Lightning version that was considered fully combat-ready was P-38F of late 1942



The 39th FS of the 35th FG, operating out of Port Moresby, New Guinea began operations in October, 1942, their "F" models were well "combat ready" way before that as they were flown there from Australia.



arras said:


> You are all also totaly omiting Zero superiority in range which would be (was) big tactical and strategical advantage.



The Zero's range is based on operating at economical cruise power (probably at 55%) 1,200 miles (internal fuel), 1,844 miles with drop tank.
The Spit II had half that range at high cruise, but then again the Spit wasn't designed to fly across oceans.




arras said:


> Zero was aircraft with advantages and disadvantages as anyother including Spitfre. In my eyes overaly there is no superiority of Spitfre over Zero and I would go for Zero in one to one.


.

You're entitled to your opinion but with the speed (especially in the dive) advantage coupled with 8 .303 machine guns of the Spitfire further enhanced with "Flying Tiger type tactics" would of made the Zero a great clay pigeon! Less capable aircraft than the Spitfire (the Wildcat specifically) feasted without mercy on the Zero through out the entire Pacific War!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 15, 2005)

in a dogfight i too would say spitfire though, she, that's what she was designed to do, and she was very good at it..........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 16, 2005)

I personally think the Zero wasn't even good in a dogfight - it was average in a dogfight. All round it was a great plane mixing it's fighting capability with excellent range but it was just a poor plane in combat and only had the 6 months of success against ignorant Western pilots and second-rate Western equipment. 

The Gloster designed F.5/34 was a lot like a Zero in a dogfight with just superior speed, it was rejected by the MOD.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 16, 2005)

Cool! 8) It looks like an MC.200 or G.50 or similar.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 16, 2005)

It was built in 1937 - and the first prototype flew in May of that year.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I personally think the Zero wasn't even good in a dogfight - it was average in a dogfight. All round it was a great plane mixing it's fighting capability with excellent range but it was just a poor plane in combat and only had the 6 months of success against ignorant Western pilots and second-rate Western equipment.



Best explination on this yet!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

Im with Plan_D on this one. Sorry arras but the Zero was only feared at first because no one knew anything about it. They soon realized that above 275mph on the early models she was easily outclassed. As was stated by even the airframe was built like a coke can and the she did not have self sealing tanks. She would have been chewed apart by a Spitfire.

Also as was posted by Plan_D here, there are a lot of circumstances that are not posted on paper stats and therefor you can not just go off of speed and dive characteristics. The Spit was a much better aircraft. As a matter of fact the Zero was ouclassed by most aircraft past 1943. Why do you think the Hellcats and Wildcats had such better shoot down rates than the Zero. Now take an aircraft like the Spitfire which could outfly both of the hellcat and Wildcat.


----------



## arras (Jul 18, 2005)

You don't have to be sorry DAIG, it is just a discusion.

I gona stop here since I think opinions were writen alredy and there is no sense to prolongate this.

I think that Zero had showed its quality while shoting down Huricanes, Wildcats and P-40s (which was the best US fighter of the time) in numbers and it did that with overhelming superiority. If it was superior to them it would be at last equal to Spitfre if not better ..just my opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

arras said:


> You don't have to be sorry DAIG, it is just a discusion.
> 
> I gona stop here since I think opinions were writen alredy and there is no sense to prolongate this.
> 
> I think that Zero had showed its quality while shoting down Huricanes, Wildcats and P-40s (which was the best US fighter of the time) in numbers and it did that with overhelming superiority. If it was superior to them it would be at last equal to Spitfre if not better ..just my opinion.



How could you say that! The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!

Erik Shilling (AVG Pilot), "The P-40 was a hell of a lot better fighter than those who have never flow it think. If it had had the top speed of a 51 I would take it over any fighter the US had." 

Jeff Ethell (Pilot, aviation author and historian), "After years of reading that the P-40 could not maneuver, particularly with a Zero, and that it had to make diving slash attacks to be effective, I had come to accept the general opinion that it was outclassed by almost everything else flying. Sitting in the cockpit, with the controls in my hands, having written a book about the aircraft and said all those things, the accepted history in my brain was wrestling with the seat of my pants. No question it did not have the top speed and high altitude performance to disengage targets at will, but it was certainly more maneuverable than other American fighters, particularly the P-51." 

I'm not pushing the P-40 here but you can't argue with history! Yes you are entitled to your opinion but actual facts and documeted history show that the Zero got Mauled!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

I agree FBJ, and well put.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

There weren't even that many Hurricanes shot down by the Zero - in fact, I reckon the kill ratio against Japanese planes would be in the Hurricane's ratio. Most the Hurricanes in 1941 and 1942 fell to mechanical failures and lack of spare parts more than enemy action. 

From Bill Gunston's _Classic Fighters_ - 

_"In all important respects the design of this carrier-based fighter of the Imperial Japanese Navy was ordinary to the point of being old-fashioned. It was, for example, almost identical in size, shape, weight, engineering detail design and performance to the British Gloster F.5/34 flown in December 1937, almost 18 months before the Japanese fighter."_

_"...it *should* have posed few problems to Allied pilots."_

Bold added by me.


----------



## arras (Jul 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ >>


> The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!


you should name your source ...I newer heard about Wildcat but kill ratio of Flying Tigers 8:1 was claimed against all Japanese aircraft, naval, army, bombers, fighters ..all. +it is kill ratio counted from war anals of F.T.s reality was something diferent as was shown by post was analisis of both sides losses. Real kill ratio was something around 1:1 - 1:2 against all.
Against Wildcat I dont know, but unles you gona post some reliable sources, I wont trust it ...Wildcat was solid strudy aircraft but worsth than P-40 and P-40 did quit bad against Zero. Batles between Zero and Wildcat I know about, such as those during Midway attack went bad for Wildcat.

I know that Wildcats serwed at some smaller US cariers at the end of war and may be they did well against Zero ...but by that time Japanese were in wery bad situation with wery green pilots so I think we can exclude those.



> I'm not pushing the P-40 here but you can't argue with history! Yes you are entitled to your opinion but actual facts and documeted history show that the Zero got Mauled!


 ...I wonder than, why so many alied pilots have lost they lifes and especialy, why aliens have lost control of skyes over whole pacific and asia theaters at the begining of war. What was shoting all those P-40 down? Were they all piloted by suicide pilots???  And dont forget that Japan had only 400 Zeros that time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

arras said:


> FLYBOYJ >>
> 
> 
> > The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!
> ...



Sources - To name a few!

http://centurytel.net/midway/appendix/appendixfourteen_usvftac.html,
http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_record.html
http://staff.jccc.net/droberts/p40/finalp40.html

On another post it was shown how the F4F's performance improved from Coral Sea to Guadalcanal where it went from a 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the Japanese to a 4 to 1 in favor of the USN and USMC. Only 178 Wildcats were lost during the entire war! 

And I don't know where your sources are from but you will find the ones I posed here and in other posts show that the Zero got beaten pretty badly through out the Pacific War

Here's what I posted in another post on the same subject -
At Coral Sea, the Zero had about a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the F4f. At Midway the F4F had a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. At Guadalcanal it went to 2.5 to 1. See the links; 

http://centurytel.net/midway/appendix/appendixfourteen_usvftac.html 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Aces/ 

Bottom line, only 178 F4Fs were lost in combat! Over 400 Zeros were destroyed by Wildcats, and that's very conservative!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

arras said:


> I wonder than, why so many alied pilots have lost they lifes and especialy, why aliens have lost control of skyes over whole pacific and asia theaters at the begining of war. What was shoting all those P-40 down? Were they all piloted by suicide pilots???  And dont forget that Japan had only 400 Zeros that time!



I don't know where you're sources are from but you seem to believe that US fighter pilots were falling out of the skies at the beginning of WW2. In early 1942 USAAF P-39s and P-40s did have a rough time against the Japanese but that changed in late 42' whe the P-38 entered the pacific and then the mauling of the Zero began. 

From Midway on the USN and USMC maintained a constant surperiortiy over the Japanese and that lasted until the end of the war. Here' s a USAAF site for reference:http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs11.htm

On Dec 7, 1941 the japanese had 400 zeros deployed, mainly model 21s. With in a year that number at least doubled. A total of 10,449 Zeros were built - 3,879 by Mitsubishi and 6,570 by Nakajima

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/A6M_dev.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Sorry arras, as FBJ has said you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong about the Zero being so much superior. The Zero was very overated in my opinion. It achieved its success based off of surprise and lack of knowledge by the allies. Once the Allies learned more about it and the surprise facter was gone it was open season on the Zero. Lets see here is the account of some of the Battles. On some of these I can not confirm the number of Zeros or Wildcats but the point is they were gettting slaughtered One Reason would be the Japs did not have great fighter strategy. The US used a team type strategy while the Japs relied on the individual. Also arras as you stated toward the end of the war the US was fighting Jap pilots that had no experience. This would not have happened had all the experienced Jap pilots not been shot down by allied fighters.  

*Battle of Midway*

*Japan*

Carrier Aircraft Lost: 261
Mitsubishi A6M2, "Zero" Fighter

Aichi D3A1, "Val" Carrier Bomber

Nakajima B5N2, "Kate" Carrier Attack Plane 
Lost in Midway Air Strike: 6 
Lost in Combat Air Patrol: 12 
Lost in Attacks Against U.S. Carriers: 24 
Lost with Carriers when They Sunk: 219

TOTAL: 261

Fighters Being Ferried Lost: 21 
Seaplanes Lost: 10

TOTAL: 31

*TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 292*

*USA*

Carrier Aircraft Lost: 109 
Grumman F4F-3/-4, "Wildcat" Fighter

Douglas SBD-2/-3, "Dauntless" Dive Bomber

Douglas TBD-1, "Devastator" Torpedo Bomber 
Shore Based Aircraft Lost: 
Marine: 28 
Douglas SBD-2, "Dauntless" Dive Bomber

Vought SB2U-3, "Vindicator" Dive Bomber

Grumman F4F-3, "Wildcat" Fighter

Brewster F2A-3, "Buffalo" Fighter 
Navy: 6 
Grumman TBF-1, "Avenger" Torpedo Bomber

Consolidated PBY-5/-5A, "Catalina" Search and Rescue Plane 
Army: 2 Martin B-26, "Marauder" Bomber

*TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 145*

*Battle of Eastern Solomans*

*Japan*

75 aircraft lost

*USA *

25 aircraft lost

_Sometime later radar discovered many planes inbound. These were Ryugo's 15 Zero's and 6 Vals. VMF-223 intercepted them and shot down 21 attackers._
http://www.everblue.net/1942/

Lets see that says *15 Zeros's* and 6 Vals. 15 + 6=21 and *21 got shot down thats 15 Zeros right there.*

*Batte of Santa Cruz*

*Japan*

97 aircraft lost

*USA*

81 aircraft lost


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2005)

R. Leonard posted great stats on the F4F VS. Hurricane thread - arras
I suggest you read it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

Yeap I think most stats would show that the Zero was not as good in actual combat as it says on paper. The aircraft was fast and nimble at first but she was so underarmored that throwing a rock at it could take it out.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2005)

The Zero was quite slow actually.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

At first she was competative in speed and such not but this all soon was surpassed by allied aircraft that were faster, more nimble and were better armoured while having more armament.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2005)

Some very good film stills depicting Ki-45s attacking a B-29s:







A couple of B-29 damaged, the upper aircraft had lost his Nº1 engine and is going down.






A nakajima Ki-45 touched by the defensive gunfire.


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2005)

The top shot is really good. We tend to forget (well I do) just how big the B29 was for its time and that shows it. Certainly I don't think that I would have fancied going up against them in a lightly armed Ki 45


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

My impression of the Pacific fighters is a simplistic one.

It's like cars. Everybody knows the name Ferrari, sure they're fast. They must be the fastest. But wait, that Lamborghini, now with looks like that it's gotta be the fastest. And Porsches, we all know that name, surely they're just about the fastest too.
But then you take a look at the engineering characteristics more deeply and come away with a totally different method of appraisal. Ferrari's a Le Mans race car put on the road, Lambo's have very few expenses spared as a supercar in the true sense and names like McLaren and Vector have the fastest road-going one-offs at the dry lake tests, but get butt-kicked on the track. But then we get into what kind of track was involved...

The Zero was a fantastic use of resources. Nobody knew how fragile and underpowered it really was, everybody thought it had awesome manoeuvrability, speed and the heavy armament to get the job done.
Then one got finally captured and tested with disappointing yet cheerful results.
In one sense, the US had pulled out all stops on competing with a rumour. At a time when the USN thought the F4F was barely keeping up it was actually close to outclassing the nimble but easily downed Zero, which also enjoyed a relative lack of development in the same given time frame.
The F6F was considered to totally outclass all later Zero variants (I think the F4U just plain reinvented the rules), which had finally become armoured however couldn't keep up with the extra weight in horsepower improvement. The Japanese were unprepared to sacrifice range for combat development with the Zero. It was however still heavily armed, with twin 20mm cannon on top of its cowling machine guns.

Probably the greatest limiting factor of all Pacific fighters was range requirement. It was the single most important engineering specification. Considering this, the performance of both Japanese and US fighters in the Pacific was precisely as awesome as any in the European theatre. In my opinion.

Perhaps this was where the P-51D gained its, to my mind slightly overblown reputation. Most of its design characteristics appear to me, to be involved with straight line drag and range, its vulnerabilities were plain and not enjoyed by other, shorter ranged fighters to the quite same degree. But then they couldn't do what it could do either.
And its strengths were obvious, a teensy-weensy plane with a monstrous engine, still a winning fighter combination since the invention of the Bf 109.

The Ki-84 looks to me like a heavy fighter, designed to fill the kind of niche you might find a Tempest or a Thunderbolt at. I don't really think the Japanese had quite the technological edge they might've liked.
I mean of course it "outperformed all other fighter types used in the war."
You can find that precise statement, depending on your sources, for the following aircraft:
Yak 3
La 7
Hawker Tempest
Supermarine Spitfire MkXIV
P47D Thunderbolt
F4U Corsair
Fw 190D-9
Bf 109K

Truth is even the Me262 can't claim such a title due to a Mr Whittle in England. Sorry, nobody wins in this one.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

What the hell was all that about?

So, in short, you're sitting on the fence because you don't know. And Chennault knew about the Zero, the "Thatch and Weave" was developed by the AVG - they knew how to the defeat the Zero in P-40s. The USN just didn't listen.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 23, 2005)

CB, *great* pictures...! 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> What the hell was all that about?
> 
> So, in short, you're sitting on the fence because you don't know. And Chennault knew about the Zero, the "Thatch and Weave" was developed by the AVG - they knew how to the defeat the Zero in P-40s. The USN just didn't listen.



Never seen it stated as the 'Thatch and Weave' before.

When did the AVG meet Zeros?


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

> What the hell was all that about?



Oops, my bad.



> The Nakajima Ki 84 was the best fighter in ww2.
> 
> Not when compared to the Spit, P-47, and Fw-190.
> 
> ...


It's something I'll continually say after a lifetime love affair with combat aircraft. So long as they're contemporary comparisons, there's really no such thing as better so much as different in engineering specification. Better here, worse there.
Aside from that "better" combat aircraft usually means poorly suited comparisons.

Zeros held their own for a bit, nothing spectacular but doing okay. But trying to hold on to a Zero is like trying to hold on to a 109 and Zeros didn't get anywhere near the development they did. The war changed significantly in its own lifetime. Jets, ICBMs and atomic bombs happened.
Hellcats and Corsairs come from a totally different planet to Zero's I think.
And I agree the development potential of the Ki-84 as their comparison was compromised.

I'm sure entire books could be written about it. But the question should really be which aircraft do you prefer, not which is better.
Here's why:


> Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union cared little about the lives of their own people, it was fight to the death or until you win. They were flying massive sortie numbers and they would often willingly ram other aircraft!
> U.S infantry weren't the best, German infantry was and there was a very good reason for that.
> German soldiers were on speed. They handed out amphetimies like candy.
> The German troops were superior to the Japanese in combat.


I mean come on. Why don't you just put a pointy hat on and hang some niggers. And supertroopers on amphetamines? Well I suppose US troops seem to prefer morphine and heroin so that's fair enough.

I think any man who puts his all in, and gives it for his country honestly, with a gun in his hand and his every fibre switched on, deserves the title "the best." Japanese, US or anybody else.
When people talk about "Japanese" or "US" or anybody else's failures, they're invariably talking about strategic command. Battlefield tactics, everybody recognises comes down to individual military leaders.
I really don't think we can classify entire cultures through this doctrine without adopting a blatantly bigoted intellectual environment.

I mean no offense in this, just that I do not morally agree with the complacency that approach.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

China and Burma. Although it has been said they could have mistaken Oscars for them but the Reisen did fight over China when the AVG were there, so I reckon they did meet Zero at some point since Chennault produced a report on them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Never seen it stated as the 'Thatch and Weave' before.



No, it's the "Thatch Weave" named after Cmdr. James Thatch (VF-3)
http://www.fearsquadron.com/2 Tactics.htm




KraziKanuk said:


> When did the AVG meet Zeros?



They actually became operational immediately after Pearl Harbor (not intentionally)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 23, 2005)

FLYBOY, that is why I asked since I have only seen 'Thatch Weave'.

The American Volunteer Group first fought the Japanese on December 20, 1941, and was deactivation on July 4, 1942.


Naturally pD Chennault knew of the Zero/Zeke since it had been in action since Aug 1941.

Do you have a list of the IJN units that fought in China and Burma after Dec 20 1941? This was a IJA theatre and the A6M was a IJN a/c.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

It was but the IJN did attack from the Indian ocean. I don't have the order of battle but I know of a few attacks the IJN did against Burma and India, I'll just find it.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

Vice-Admiral Nagumo Chuichi arrived in the Bay of Bengal on the 2nd April, 1942 with five aircraft carriers to attack Trincomalee in Ceylon. Vice-Admiral Ozawa Jisabura attacked Cocanda and Vizagapatam on the 5th April. On the 9th Trincomalee was attacked by Nagumo and the RAF attacked Nagumo's flagship, the _Akagi_. 

I'm finding the proper information but that's what I can remember. So, naturally, the Zero would have been met by the RAF.


----------



## R Leonard (Jul 23, 2005)

Umm, if I could jump in . . .

The Thach Weave (note only one T) was developed by Lt Cdr John S Thach, USN (note Cdr James Thach was John Thach's older brother, but he was a black shoe. John was four years behind his older brother James at USNA; the nickname "Jimmy" was bestowed upon John by upperclassmen who remembered his brother) during the summer of 1941 in response to the reports that Chennault had forwarded to Washington on the performance of the A6M Zero. Chennault's report (albeit somewhat inflating the Zero’s abilities) was base on observations made during the Zero's combat debut in the spring of 1941. Thach managed to get a copy of the report and realized his aircraft (his squadron, VF-3, was flying the F4F-3 and Thach had no illusions about the eventualities of a war with Japan) would be at a serious disadvantage. The tactic he developed he called the “beam defense.” In naval terms, when a ship is “abeam” to another ship is directly to the side, broadside to broadside. And so the “Beam Defense” Simply, with a four-plane division, divided into 2 two-plane sections fly directly abeam of each other, at a distance just outside the turn radius. Each section was to keep an overwatch of the other. Let’s call them sections 1 and 2. In the event that section 1 is about to be attacked and section 2 sees the attack coming in, section 2 would immediately execute a turn towards section 1. This move starts a chain of events to counter the attack on section 1. The turn alerts section 1 that they are about to be on the receiving end of an attack. Section 1 now executes a turn towards section 2. This means that the attacking aircraft are faced with the problem of dealing with a full deflection shot (the most difficult to make and virtually impossible without considerable practice) or following section 1 through its turn. Odds are the attack will be aborted because there’s no decent shot available. If the attacker really screws up and follows section 1 through the turn, he’ll find himself facing the guns of section 2 coming at him from dead ahead and slightly below, a perfect set up, zero deflection, solution for section 2. His chances of survival at that point are pretty slim.

Thach worked out the details that summer in tests flying against Lt Edward “Butch” O’Hare. The test was for Thach to take a division at half throttle and fend off O’Hare’s division which was at full throttle. Thach’s division was able to counter any attack that O’Hare’ division made. O’Hare told Thach that no matter the type off attack, the attacker could not complete the maneuver without facing the guns of the airplane on the opposite weave. 

All worked out before the US entered the war. The name “Thach Weave” was coined by Lt Cdr James Flatley. Flatley commanded VF-10, the first of the “new” squadrons to enter combat. Flatley’s squadron drilled the tactic under the tutelage of Lt Cdr O’Hare, who by then commanded VF-3, during it’s work up time at NAS Maui in the late summer of 1942. 

Flatley went on to be CAG 5 in a tour aboard USS Yorktown (CV-10). Upon his return from that tour, Flatley and Lt William Leonard (back from a tour with VF-11 out of Guadalcanal and who had been Thach’s XO at Midway) while working at ComFairWest in the fall and winter of 1943 wrote the Beam Defense into the USF-74 standard combat tactics manual for fighters.

As far as the AVG was concerned, their standard tactic when attacked was to dive away, to use the P-40’s superior diving speed to escape and then zoom climb back to altitude. Their opponents in VF vs VF combat were usually Nates and Oscars of the IJAAF. The IJN had long left the China operational areas; the AVG did not fight Zeros.

Rich


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2005)

_"The IJN had long left the China operational areas; the AVG did not fight Zeros."_

1st Squadron, AVG, were in Burma though. The IJN attacked Burma and India when they moved into the Bay of Bengal.


----------



## R Leonard (Jul 24, 2005)

Mere proximity doesn't count. Suggest you avail yourself of a copy of Dan Ford's "Flying Tigers," pretty much the definitive work on the subject. Ford identifies each and every Japanese unit involved in each and every AVG action, using actual Japanese records. All are IJA. The AVG did not ever fight against the A6M. 

The problem is that in the early days of the war any Japanese fighter with a greenhouse canopy was referred to as a Zero. It wasn't until late 1942 when Allied intelligence became a little more practiced that other types were identified. As a result many of the early reports by speak to encounters with Zeros when they were actually up against Nates and Oscars. This was especially true with the AVG.

I really don't think you'll be able to find a single reputable source that documents an encounter between the Kido Butai and the AVG.

Rich


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2005)

Alright but weren't the Oscars similar to the Zero in characteristics?

I know you're a genius on the USN information but do you know anything about the IJAAF and AVG/RAF actions over Burma. If you do I have some questions about losses and kills.


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2005)

Oscarrs and Zero's were very different. The Oscar was slower, more lightly armed (2 x HMG in most cases, lighter in others), more manoeverable and had less strength.
Why they built them until the end of the war is beyond me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Alright but weren't the Oscars similar to the Zero in characteristics?



The Oscar was slower than the Zero and carried less armament, only 2 12.7 mgs with 250 rounds each. The unique fear the Oscar was a "butterfly flap" which enable the Oscar to do some incredibly tight turns. The Oscar could do immelmans, slow rolls and loops at air speeds under 165 mph! It was more maneuvable than the Zero! But even more so than the Zero, the Oscar was was built like an aluminum coke can and could not absorb any damage. Additionally its airframe design allowed no room for improvement so it changed very little from the first models.

One more note on the Oscar - I believe it was one of the only Japanese aircraft (if not the only Japanese aircraft) to be used by another nation. Some of the puppet states set up by Japan operated the Oscar as well as the French over Viet Nam in the late 1940s and early 1950s.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2005)

Surely then, at the start of the war the Allies would just be as fearful of the Oscar as they were of the Zero. The reputation of the Zero was agile and quick climb but if the Oscar was more agile then...  

I don't much about the general Japanese aviation, only the Zero. It would be interesting to learn more about the Japanese main types, especially those used over Burma.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 24, 2005)

Rich,

can you comment on this text?

_According to revisionists, the weave was first used during the battle of Midway, giving credit to Commander Thatch for inventing it, and referred to it as the "Thach Weave."

An article in the Smithsonian magazine, Air Space, said that Lt. Commander Thach had developed the weave which he said contributed in a large part, "...To the success of the Battle of Midway...." However, Commander Thatch admits he had heard it was used in China. Incidently this weave was used, during our training at Toungoo, and was part of a combat report when the AVG first encounter the Japanese on December 20, 1941._


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

I'm certainly no expert on Japanese military aviation, but I think the Zero enjoyed much more infamy than the Oscar due mainly to the fact that it was encountered much more frequently, didn't it? The fighter strength of the Japanese Navy was far greater than that of the Army, wasn't it? Oscars wouldn't have been encountered nearly as frequently. Plus the fact that the Army continued to field newer fighters while the Navy basically put all of it's money on the Zero.


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2005)

The Ki43 I had a top speed of 308mph and the Ki43II 320 but both only had 2 x HMG and it should be remembered that the IJA HMG was probably the worst of all the fighting nations so it was heavily under gunned. Some early versions only had 2 x LMG or 1xHMG and 1 x LMG

Also I believe that it couldn't dive much as its controls almost locked solid at 350mph and it was standard practice to reduce the engine power before going into a dive as it was clean design and accelerated quickly to 350. With this in mind it was fairly easy for most allied aircraft to evade it asuming they saw it plus of course they had a fair chance of surviving the first burst unless it was particually accurate.

Interesting Quote follows which would mean that although the K143 was fragile it did at least have some armour.

'We were encountering a serious problem by this time. Recent Spitfires seem to have adopted even more powerful engines and and their climb and speed had improved considerably. Chasing and shooting down these enemy fighters with our Hayabusa MkIIs became increasingly difficult. Even if we succeeded in luring them into a close-in dogfight, the skill of the RAF pilots was not bad at all. In clear contrast to the USAAF pilots, the RAF pilots were seasoned veterans. They often seemed to intentionally try to dogfight us rather than using hit-and-run tactics.

So we made our best efforts to improve the rate of climb and maneuvrability of our mounts; stripping down our planes was the primary method. We removed our back armor, head armor (this was also to imrove rear vision), and reducedthe number of oxygen bottles.

Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda, 64th Sentai commenting on the state of battle in Burma , 1944


Nonskimmer is correct when he says that the IJA came up with newer designs such as the KI44, KI61, KI84 and finally the Ki100 which rectified the problems of the Ki43. 
The Navy probably stuck with the Zero to long and went to the Raiden which wasn't a success and the Shinden was a lucky development of a floatplane fighter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 24, 2005)

The J2M Raiden was a promising fighter design that could have been active in late 1942/early 1943. As such it encountered several design problems (mainly the engines) and didnt start to see service in any numbers until mid/late 1944.


----------



## R Leonard (Jul 24, 2005)

> Rich,
> 
> can you comment on this text?
> 
> ...



Yes, I can.

This writing (above) is a case of someone taking words and meanings out of context. And my immediate response is that someone, who likes to throw around words with negative connotations in history circles, such as “revisionists” is apparently either an AVG apologist, at worst, or, at best, an overly enthusiastic AVG booster, or most likely, someone who does not know what a Thach Weave is and is simply keying on the word “Weave”. Regretfully, this goes on and on. Neither the historical timeline, nor an actually examination of what defines the tactics described supports the position that the AVG had anything to do with a Thach Weave type tactic, nor did they independently develop any weave type tactic, nor was Thach at all influenced by the activities of the AVG. Further, if one takes the time to read up on the AVG one finds not a single instance of a description of a Thach Weave type tactic being used in combat.

Thach was aware of tactical developments from the reports he was receiving. Important to note was that Thach worked out the details of his Beam Defense in July 1941. The first 29 of the AVG pilots and ground personnel did not arrive in Toungoo until 1 August 1941. A second contingent of 123 arrived on 18 August. By early September they were conducting training flights in their P-40’s. Kind of makes it a little tough for the AVG to come up first with a “Thach Weave” tactic some two months after Thach had already worked out the details and tested same, eh? Further, Thach and VF-3 were already off to the Pacific by the time the AVG entered its first combat. If indeed, Thach ever saw an AAR from this AVG action it was certainly long, long, after the fact. Kind of makes me wonder exactly when Thach “heard it was used in China” and exactly what did he hear. A quick look at his oral history doesn’t mention weaving in China, nor does Steve Ewing’s recent biography “Thach Weave – The Life of Jimmie Thach”. 

When you read up on this first action of the AVG you find that it is an intercept of about a dozen or so Ki-48 (Lily) twin-engined bombers. Without going into detail of the action itself, two of the P-40’s making the intercept, in accordance with the tactics laid out by Chennault, were instructed to remain overhead as a protection against the appearance of Japanese fighters. These two were described as weaving over the action and were referred to as “weavers.” This practice, which in the USN would be called a “high CAP” was, in reality, merely milling about over the action waiting for something to happen. It has absolutely nothing to do with the tactic later called a Thach Weave.

There are even cases of USN fighters weaving, but not in a Thach Weave. At Coral Sea the strike escort F4Fs weaved back an forth over their charges as they made their way towards the Shoho on the 7th and Shokaku on the 8th. This weave was intentional as it permitted the fighters to stay with their slower companions without having to throttle back. Another weave, for certain, but not a Thach Weave.

I think it is important to note, and cannot be repeated enough, that when developing his defensive tactic, Thach did not use the word “weave” at all. He called it a “beam defense”. 

Thach deliberately avoided the word “weave” because he was aware of a tactic used by the RAF. If you note the timing of the quote, reporting use of a “weave” in their first combat on 20 Dec 41, obviously, then, the AVG was using a “weave” as well, but long after, as noted, Thach devised his defense. In actuality, the AVG “weave” or “weaver” was not particularly a pure “tactic”, but rather a formation lookout doctrine and was, in fact, the same as noted for the RAF. Oddly enough, the AVG use of weavers in their formations made them somewhat behind the times, doctrinally. For the sake of simplicity, though, I’ll go ahead and refer to the use of weavers as a “tactic” as once there is contact with enemy aircraft it no longer becomes a lookout doctrine, but a defensive tactic.

The “Weave” or “Weaver” was a formation defense developed, again, by the RAF. At its simplist, this involved having the tail-end-charlie of a given formation weave back and forth over the rear of the formation to discourage an overhead or rear attack. In other cases, such as the AVG having a couple of planes milling around over an action, there was more than one weaver, but the intent was the same. What the RAF found was that, and typical of most air forces of the time, the tail-end-charlie tended to be the most junior pilot. So, in retrospect, they were putting the least experienced pilot, or pilots, in a position critical to the defense of the formation. They also found that the Germans, no one ever said they were stupid, had a remarkable tendency to pick off these weavers as there was no one to protect them. The RAF lost a lot of FNGs that way. Eventually, in early 1942, the practice was discontinued for exactly that reason. 

Thach was very much aware of this tactic/practice, from briefings and reports from liaison officers and observers, and experimented with it in training with VF-3 on the west coast. At the same time, on the east coast, Lt Cdr Oscar Pedersen’s VF-42 also experimented with concept of protective weavers, both in the spring of 1941. Both squadron commanders, and, of course, their pilots, quickly realized that the poor slob chosen to be weaver had a zero over two pi life expectancy in combat. By the end of May 1941, neither squadron ever considered the use of weavers as a viable tactic. I am unaware of any other USN VF squadrons that may have experimented with weavers.

So, adopted from the RAF, this also was the weave “tactic used by the AVG. I would posit that their use of the practice put them somewhat behind the curve in terms of formation protection. 

The comparison of the RAF/AVG Weaver to the Thach Weave is simply a seizure upon the word “weave”. Remember, Thach did not use the word weave for his tactic. The expression Thach Weave did not come into the lexicon until Lt Cdr Jimmy Flatley named it in his after action report for the Battle of Santa Cruz. He recounted how Thach’s Beam Defense tactic had allowed him a successful defense in an almost sure destruction situation during the battle. He wrote: “. . . the four plane division is the only thing that will work and, I am calling it the Thach Weave.” This written in late October 1942.

The Thach Wave, on the other hand is, as stated, a tactic. Here you have, commonly, a four plane-two section division cruising along, probably in a finger four type mode (though in USN practice probably each section leader and his wing man are little closer together than the sections to each other). When attacked (note: “when attacked”) by superior numbers the sections separate farther, to use a naval term “abeam,” to where the distance between the sections is marginally greater that the turning radius at military power. It is the duty of each section to provide, to use an army term, an “overwatch” of the other section. When, say, the starboard side section detects an attack setting up on the port side section, the starboard side section initiates the weave with a turn to port as the enemy commits to his run. The port section see this move, realizes somebody’s starting a gunnery run on them and turns toward the starboard section. This accomplishes a couple of things . . . the turning to starboard creates a high deflection shot for the enemy airplane(s) that if they not particularly trained to do (and most air forces in those days tended to prefer the straight up the rear or head on zero deflection shot) you have spoiled their shot ... the next thing that usually happens is that the enemy is watching the port section and if he attempts to reacquire a sight picture (and he probably will) he’s going to turn to starboard as well, still watching his intended victim. Now the enemy pilot has set himself up for a head on encounter with the approaching starboard section. All he can do is hope for the best, because if he tries to break away he’s only opening himself up for a free low deflection shot from the starboard section ... game, set, match. An illustration of this can be found at 

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/defense.htm

Bottom line is that weaving about over ones charges on escort or boring holes on the sky keeping a lookout for your squadron mates as the execute an attack is not a Thach Weave. The Thach Weave requires a particular positioning of the division or section and the “weave” is not initiated until the attacking enemy has committed to his run-in.


Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2005)

Excellent!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

vanir said:


> I mean come on. Why don't you just put a pointy hat on and hang some niggers.



Alright vanir we dont need talk like that in this forum. This forum contains people from all walks of life and we will not have people being offended by that kind of talk.


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 4, 2007)

The wehrmacht may have had very capable soldiers but since Germany's defeat the country's military is not considered to be among the world's strongest. It seems ironic that the Germans would be so capable yet become irrelevant in the postwar era.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Cojimar 1945 said:


> The wehrmacht may have had very capable soldiers but since Germany's defeat the country's military is not considered to be among the world's strongest. It seems ironic that the Germans would be so capable yet become irrelevant in the postwar era.



I promise you that they are not as irrelevent as you say they are. They may not be that strong on paper but the German military is quite strong.

The soldiers still recieve some of the best training in the world and the German NCO is still one of the top just as it was in WW2. 
The German tank force made up of Leopard II's is one of the best tanks to built in modern times. 
The German soldiers use G-36 which is a damng good gun.
German Airborne troops are considered very elite.
German mountain troops are the best in the world.
German Airforce is made up of capable aircraft such as the Mig-29 and the Eurofighter (coming on line now).
German Navy is lacking in large explosiveness but the new U-Boots that they are putting out are the most quiet subs in the World.

Where Germany is now lacking is the fact that it is a small force. Because of WW2 they are not allowed to have a larger force. It is for Defense only.

The German ministry however would like to enlargen the force and get more involved in international affairs with NATO. It just does not look like it will be approved.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2007)

Have to agree with Deralder on his comments and would suggest that the other problem is the Policians holding the soldiers back. I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2007)

But, no offence to Germany, the world is justified to be at least mildly cautious. Personally, I would not be because Germany is a great ally (and a great country) but I don't blame NATO for being cautious over a German armament.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Glider said:


> Have to agree with Deralder on his comments and would suggest that the other problem is the Policians holding the soldiers back. I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.



The problem is in fighting between polotical parties. Some wishing to be more involved and some wishing to keep Germansy military as a pure defence force.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2007)

smaller forces are typical of Europe though, the up side of it is that European troops tend to be better trained than those of larger forces, and often in very specialised roles over the wide range of enviropments found in Europe, but a lot of the forces wouldn't be as strong as they are if it weren't for the strong international co-operation in Europe, but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?


----------



## mkloby (Jan 6, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> smaller forces are typical of Europe though, the up side of it is that European troops tend to be better trained than those of larger forces, and often in very specialised roles over the wide range of enviropments found in Europe, but a lot of the forces wouldn't be as strong as they are if it weren't for the strong international co-operation in Europe, but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?



I know that you're speaking in general terms, but I want to point this out regarding the "better trained because they're smaller" argument: the US trains several other nation's pilots!
This is only other nations pilots that I have trained with:
Germany
Italy - Regia Marina
Spain
Denmark
India

I know for sure that all the Italian naval aviators are trained in the US, and I believe that it's the other nation's naval aviators not AF pilots that we train.
I'm sure there are even more, as this is just from my personal experience.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?




Not sure. The Bundeswehr at the hight of the Cold War had 495,000 military personel. In 1990 it was reduced to 370,000. I has since been reduced again to a little more than 250,000 personel of which 50,000 are conscripts.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 6, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Vice-Admiral Nagumo Chuichi arrived in the Bay of Bengal on the 2nd April, 1942 with five aircraft carriers to attack Trincomalee in Ceylon. Vice-Admiral Ozawa Jisabura attacked Cocanda and Vizagapatam on the 5th April. On the 9th Trincomalee was attacked by Nagumo and the RAF attacked Nagumo's flagship, the _Akagi_.
> 
> I'm finding the proper information but that's what I can remember. So, naturally, the Zero would have been met by the RAF.


A good general source for Allied fighters v the Japanese Army and Navy fighters is "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, first 2 vols about 1941-42 SEA, a third recent one about Burma for the rest of the war. Afficianados pick at minor errors in his chronologies, but still a remarkable book. Two other narrower ones "Flying Tigers" by Ford and "Doomed at the Start" by Bartsch (US fighters in the Philippines 1941-42).

The AVG did not meet JNAF A6M's. Their opposition was mostly JAAF, ie. Army, Type 97's (Ki-27 later dubbed "Nate") with increasing proportion of Type 1's (Ki-43, "Oscar") as time went one. The AVG outscored the JAAF around 3:1 (accepting Japanese loss records), strictly fighter v fighter ratio.

The RAF met mainly Japanese Army fighters too, but did meet the A6M's in some cases over Malaya, and then in the Japanese raids on Ceylon. The exchange ratio's throughout were heavily in favor of the Japanese well over 3:1 against the Brits, sometimes much worse (eg. Ceylon). There are many extenuating circumstance, not to start an AVG v. RAF or general Brits/US debate thread, but this is the apparent fact, per Shores which uses both sides' records. The Hurricane didn't even have >1 exchange ratio even against the Nate.

The USAAF P-40's in Philippines, Dutch East Indies and defence of Australia in up to mid 1942 mainly met the JNAF and were on the short end of around 1:3 ratio. They did OK in their few encounters with the JAAF, all cases Nates.

The USN F4F's didn't meet intense Japanese fighter opposition until May '42 so it's not quite apples and apples with "come as you are" fighting the landbased Allied fighters had to do in SEA. The USN/USMC F4F's achieved an exchange ratio of almost exactly 1:1 v A6M's from May to November (climax of G'canal). They didn't meet any JAAF fighters till early 1943. Sources there are Lundstrom "First Team" 2 volumes and Frank "Guadalcanal".

The Japanese fighter units, especially their navy, had excellent success in general in 1942, for whatever combination of plane, tactical, supply, strategic intiative (but not numerical superiority overall in general) etc etc reasons, that's the fact, absolutely not a myth. What would happen in a paper or computer match up of the planes, in an operational vacuum?, I've no idea. Nobody consistently beat the JNAF fighters in the real situation until well into 1943. The USN tie was the best Allied perforamce in 1942 against them. How the AVG would have done against the JNAF, given its unmatched success among Allied units v the JAAF, is a very interesting what if.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2007)

This was from an earlier post...

Here is an amazing wesite.....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroo...of_tables.html

I found in there a table for 1942 Kills/ Losses

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s)....

FEAF 
LOSSES 
Jan - 0
Feb - 44
Mar - 12
Apr - 0
May - 32
Jun - 28
Jul - 11
Aug - 11
Sep - 10
Oct - 0
Nov - 32
Dec - 8

FEAF
KILLS
Jan 0
Feb 20
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 20
Jul 4
Aug 41
Sep 0
Oct 6
Nov 25
Dec 54

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations.

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943).


----------



## JoeB (Jan 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This was from an earlier post...
> 
> 
> For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese.


The big problem with such figures is that the kills are claims. The actual Japanese losses would be much lower; according to the references above across a range of early campaigns Japanese air combat losses were only 25-40% of what the Allies claimed. Also it's not clear those kills exclude Japanese bombers. And actually going the other way, the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then, P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March, and P-39's didn't enter combat, in New Guinea, till late April.

Anyway, I believe the only way to assess combat success is with *both* sides' records of losses in the same combats. That's what the references I mentioned above do for most of 1941-42 Allied v Japanese fighter combats, and according to that the P-39 and P-40 had a fighter v fighter real, not claimed, exchange ratio of about 1:3 (against them, that is) through the middle of '42. That's also not including AVG or its USAAF successor unit, the 23rd FG, in China. The FEAF fighter combat was mostly against A6M's, just a few cases v Army Nates, none v. Oscars which weren't encountered ex-AVG/China by the US until 1943. The P-38, as well as better tactics, numbers and basic strategic situation, brought the USAAF to (joining with the USN/USMC in) parity against mainly the JNAF in the Solomons by the first half of 1943, and the USAAF alone really was beating the JAAF alone in New Guinea, in increasingly one sided fashion (but still not what was claimed at the time) by the second half of 1943.

Joe


----------



## JoeB (Jan 6, 2007)

double post


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 6, 2007)

That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for my take on Japanese aviation it was similar to the Italians they had some good planes but they never produced them in the numbers that the Allies produced their planes in (except for the Zero and perhaps the Oscar). Both countries had good planes near the end of the(ir) war but it was all a case of to little to late.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 6, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.


Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2007)

JoeB said:


> Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.
> 
> Joe



The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.


The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).

There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.

It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2007)

JoeB said:


> The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).
> 
> There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.
> 
> ...



Here's the other link - also not the admitted losses...

United States Army Air Forces in World War II


Agree totally - but one thing about the "claims." They elevated in numbers at a time when the Japanese started to take heavy losses - late 1942 early 1943, and the claims and actual losses compiled somewhat at a proportional rate. The common denominator there was the introduction in numbers of the P-38. The "claims" may give a distorted picture and if you take them for even 70% of their reliability it still shows the pounding the Japanese were taking. But going back to the earlier discussion, it also shows that even in mid/ late summer 1942 with their inferior P-39s and P-40, the FEAF did hold their own against the Japanese and their nimble Zero and Oscar...


----------



## iart7 (Jan 7, 2007)

> Either way you look at the war could not have been won without each other. Where would the US have based there bombers out of to bomb Germany with had it not been for England? What would the Russians have done with out lend lease? Would the US had been able to sustain a Night and Day bombing campaign without the British?



That's why it was so important for there to be a dedicated group of "allies" in the War on Iraq. Except for the British, most allies have not been willing to place their troops' lives on the line. If the allies could have guarded the borders between Syria and Iran, the insurgency could not have corrupted the war effort after the "war was won". I also believe the WMD's were moved to Syria. Sure Bush made mistakes and this was one of the worst mistakes made, but WHERE WERE THE ALIES? It's not like terrorism is not a world-wide concern, is it?
 
That said, the best Pacific fighter was definately the HELLCAT!

Did someone mention the fact that the captured Zero gave Americans valuable information about Zero's dive characteristics (could not pull to the right or left?)

iArt






=============================================
from GLIDER:


> I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.



No thanks to the Spanish in the War on Terror... remember what they did after a terror bomb of their train system? Three days after the attacks, the presiding Spanish government was defeated in ... about a terrorist attack in Madrid. All it would take is an Al Qaeda attack in Berlin or Frankfurt and perhaps the Germans would withdraw their troops? Maybe not, but what Spain did was concede the war to the enemy. Imagine if the Germans retreated from France in WWII when resistance fighters blew up a train station or railroad track? UNTHINKABLE ... 

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 8, 2007)

JoeB said:


> the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then,



Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.



JoeB said:


> P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March,


True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin, and if this list is including non combat losses, I believe alot of US P-40's were written off in Australia due to training mishaps and long ferry flights under taken by in-experianced pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.


According to the site those are air-to-air losses only.[/QUOTE]United States Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 8, 2007)

Interesting! wish there was a site like that for the RAAF.

PS how good do those Hellcats up there look in Australian markings
Hmm if only.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

iart7 said:


> If the allies could have guarded the borders between Syria and Iran, the insurgency could not have corrupted the war effort after the "war was won".



Do you really believe that? We would not have been able to contain the insurgency any better with our allies or not. The border is too porous. Trust me I know I spent 14 months in Iraq when I was in the Army.



iart7 said:


> I also believe the WMD's were moved to Syria.



I agree...



iart7 said:


> Sure Bush made mistakes and this was one of the worst mistakes made, but WHERE WERE THE ALIES? It's not like terrorism is not a world-wide concern, is it?



I disagree. Iraq was not the fight of any one else but the US. There is more to the story than you or I know. Would you want the US going to fight in a war between Saudi Arabia and one of our allies just because you felt that the US was there ally. See what I am saying...



iart7 said:


> All it would take is an Al Qaeda attack in Berlin or Frankfurt and perhaps the Germans would withdraw their troops?



From someone living in the Federal Republic of Germany I guarantee you this would not happen. The only reason that they are not doing more in Afganistan as we speak is because of the ruling party. Pulling out though they would never do.


*Okay now having said all this. Lets get this back on topic. Iraq has nothing to do with Japanese Aviation and this is not the polotics thread.*


----------



## JoeB (Jan 12, 2007)

Wildcat said:


> It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.
> 
> True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin


The Langley was carrying 32 P-40's and they were destroyed by enemy aircraft, though not in air combat, in February. At Darwin Feb 19 10, 4 were at altitude several others just taking off, but say 7 air combat, plus another that engaged a Mavis flyingboat Feb 15 in mutually destructive combat. In Java I count 1 P-40 in air combat Feb 4, 4+2 on grd Feb 5, 1 on 2/18, 7 on 2/19, 3 on 2/20, 2 on 2/21, so total 20 combat losses. So that totals 62 losses 'to enemy a/c' (w/ P-40 in air or not) including Langley but is too small without it. 44 is probably just wrong.

As long as analyzing Feb '42, 24 of those P-40's were downed in the air by Japanese fighters (all Navy, all A6M, no loss in one engagement v. JAAF Nates, and 2 losses were to bomber defensive fire, rest to enemy a/c on the ground or aboard ship). In turn the P-40's downed 2 A6M's and a Ki-27 for sure; they claimed 15 A6M's and 4 Ki-27's among Japanese fighters (they downed around 8 non fighters and only overclaimed about 2:1 against those). Very tough situation, claims don't give much clue, especially fighter-fighter. The source for actual incidents is Shores "Bloody Shambles". It's not gteed the Japanese accountings are 100% inclusive but seemed to reliably include pilots killed and in such long range ops, w/ no parachutes or rescue service, there were few if any destroyed Japanese fighters with surviving pilots in that particular situation. Later on that discrepancy, pilot v planes losses, causes more questions in the accounting.

That was about the nadir of the P-40's career v the JNAF. The units in the Phillipines ironically had done better in air combat although losses on the ground quickly reduced them to ineffectiveness; and then defending Australia the P-40 did better in spring and summer '42, but still the exchange ratio according to reported losses was heavily in the A6M's favor in total for 1942. P-39's entering combat late April in New Guinea did a pretty consistent 1:3 against the JNAF fighters that spring and summer, though worse than that in their minor participation at G'canal where the tactical situation called for high altitude fighters. Parity or any real success for the P-39/40 against the A6M lay in 1943, and when supported by P-38's (and F4U's in the Solomons).

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2007)

Good information but are relying on "Bloody Shambles" for thr 1:3 rato for the P-39 in new Guinea? The air to air ratio from the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II does not break out kills/ losses by type. When combined with the P-40 the claims/ kill ratio comes out to 1.43 to 1 aside from the errors shown.

Here are the two tables...

Army Air Forces in World War II

Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## JoeB (Jan 12, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good information but are relying on "Bloody Shambles" for thr 1:3 rato for the P-39 in new Guinea? [/url]



No, it only covers to the end of the first set of Japanese offensives in that area around the beginning of March. For New Guinea I'm comparing the Japanese losses given in Sakaida "Winged Samurai" w/ the US claims and losses given in Hess "Pacific Sweep". 

The 8th FG (P-39) claimed 45 enemy aircraft April 30-June 1 1942, 37 of them Zeroes, losing 26 P-39's in air combat almost all to Zeroes. They were the only Allied fighter unit at Port Moresby having relieved 75sdn RAAF (P-40) when they arrived. The unit opposing them was the Tainan Air Group, A6M's, with suffered 11 pilots KIA in the same period. So actually I misrecalled 1:3 before looking back at notes, sorry, it's more like perhaps 1:2 considering in this case some of the combats were over the Japanese airfields and they could have lost some planes w/ surviving pilots, though it's not mentioned in any specific accounts I know of.

Going on to P-40 in defence of Darwin from March22 -August 23 1942, for completeness, the sources are Kagero series book "3rd/202nd Air Group" v. again Hess. The 49th FG claimed 33 Zeroes for the loss of 18 P-40's in air combat, all or almost all to Zeroes though also trying to shoot down bombers. The 3rd Air Group was escorting the raids and recorded 8 actual losses.

Back in Philippines source is Bartsch "Doomed at the Start". There weren't that many air combats, the Japanese mainly neutralized the US fighters destroying them on the ground, thereafter mostly the JAAF fought there. In the first two big attacks 11 P-40's and a P-35 were downed or written off to air combat, v 7 A6M's (3rd and Tainan) lost to all causes, at least one to a PBY's defensive fire and probably at least a few to AA while strafing, nobody can know at this point. The A6M's got another P-40 later, and surprisingly P-35's got an A6M December 24 in return for one P-35 damaged beyond repair. Complete US claims aren't given. The small remaining force of P-40's had a number of encounters with the JAAF Nates until near the end, but the book uses a JAAF source without complete day by day losses. But, P-40 v. Nate in the Philippines seemed about even.

The 3rd and Tainan Air Groups were also the IJN opponents over Java; the February Darwin raid was the exception, being carrier based A6M's. The Tainan was worn down over G'canal from August, though as a unit it outscored the Marine/Navy F4F's (they in turned outscored other Zero units to end 1942 about 1:1 v A6M's). The 3rd didn't see heavy combat again until 1943 when renumbered 202nd it downed about 26 Spitfire V's (air combat, a few could have been by bombers but it's *doesn't* count the heavy Spit fuel/mechanical losses) over Darwin that spring-fall in return for 3-4 A6M's, better than it had done against P-40's over Darwin the previous year, counter to the general trend of the air war. Source, both sides, is Price "Spitfire Mark V Aces", also the Kagero book.

Joe


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

wow you guys are still at this


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2007)

JoeB said:


> No, it only covers to the end of the first set of Japanese offensives in that area around the beginning of March. For New Guinea I'm comparing the Japanese losses given in Sakaida "Winged Samurai" w/ the US claims and losses given in Hess "Pacific Sweep".


Thanks for the info Joe, then how accurate do you consider Army Air Forces Statistical Digest?


----------



## JoeB (Jan 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks for the info Joe, then how accurate do you consider Army Air Forces Statistical Digest?


For enemy aircraft destroyed, *by itself*, it doesn't offer that much. Not because the claims exceed enemy losses, that's almost always true for everybody (in WWII at least), but the degree of overstatement varied a lot over time. However if you can benchmark a series of sample incidents in a particular period and theater to real enemy losses, but can't find the real total enemy losses (this is often true in '43-45 in the Pacific) you might reasonably assume the claims/real losses inflicted ratio was constant in that period and theater and discount the total claims with it. You just can't assume that ratio was constant between periods, among numbered AF's, and especially between bomber and fighter claims.

For losses and causes I would guess the Stats Digest is much closer to the real numbers, but probably not exactly correct either. We saw the Feb '42 fighter loss to enemy a/c number appears wrong, although that was an early confused period. I doubt anyone has studied that in detail for the whole war, huge job. For the Korean War I've tried to correlate the USAF Stats Digest for that war (from 1953) with each actual loss from detailed records, a more manageable project. I found the air combat loss totals were fairly close but lower than the actual air combat losses for two reasons: accounting errors which ended up slightly understating net for whatever reason, and losses to "unknown" that can be seen from corresponding enemy claims to have been air combat losses in fact; 10-15% understatement of air combat losses overall; but reasonable people can disagree exactly what constitutes "air combat loss". My guess would be WWII situation was similar.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2007)

Very Interesting - I still find that even with some of these skewed stats if we looks at "close" kill/ loss numbers of the USAAF in the South Pacific it really wasn't as bad as some would make it. I could remember reading articles as a kid and those writers would have you thinking that we lost 10,000 aircraft between Pearl harbor and GuadalCanal. The same for the Performance of the F4F. One of our members posted that only 192 F4Fs were lost in air-to-air combat for something like 600 aircraft claimed. Even if you split those numbers it still shows the USAAF and USN weren't suffering in many cases...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2007)

Good info Joe B.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 14, 2007)

The US/RAAF claim to JP loss rate over Darwin seems suspect IMHO. Any chance that the Japanese were cooking the books on their losses? 

This kind of thing did happen, LW cooked the books in the Battle of France...


----------



## JoeB (Jan 17, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> The US/RAAF claim to JP loss rate over Darwin seems suspect IMHO. Any chance that the Japanese were cooking the books on their losses?
> 
> This kind of thing did happen, LW cooked the books in the Battle of France...


AFAIK the original source of those Japanese losses (which have appeared in more than one English language book) is the Japanese official history of the war, the Senshi Sosho, 100+ volume work published from 1960's-80's that used a large mass of original Japanese records many of which were held in the US until the late '50's but never translated. I know some western scholars have commented on Senshi Sosho's detail and lack of apparent bias; nobody has found evidence of cooking in it AFAIK. But prove any negative...

I don't recall the exact Spit claims v fighters in that case. For all Japanese a/c in that 1943 Darwin campaign the Spit claims were overstated around 3 or 4:1 according to Japanese accounts, though IIRC somewhat worse v the Zeroes and better v bomber/recon a/c. See the US P-40 claims in 1942 above which followed a similar pattern. In turn the JNAF 202nd Air Group claimed over 100 Allied a/c downed over Darwin in that campaign <30 actual. So no, on the surface those loss numbers don't look so strange to me. 

The Allies, including Brit/CW overclaimed that much or more against the Japanese in many early combats and campaigns, and the RAF overclaimed similarly to that in some encounters with the European Axis (including the Italians) esp in the first half of the war. Late in the European war, the RAF (and USAAF fighters too, though not bombers) with numerical and qualitative superiority and spare resources to put into operational analysis (gun cameras and also intel manpower to follow a detailed claim procedure) claimed much more accurately than that. But it's a mistake, IMHO but with backing I think, to project that situation to the rest of the war and "suspect" enemy losses that seem to show several:1 overclaims by Allied fighters. The simple explanation is that the hard pressed Spits overclaimed a lot, in line with numerous other examples of high overclaims by losing sides in air combat.

Joe


----------

