# Best Aircraft of the India-Burma-China Theatre



## carman1877 (Nov 23, 2009)

Which was the best in you opinion and why? I chose the P-40 becuase I belive that its armament help it to go on and lead the Flying Tigers to notoriety.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Nov 23, 2009)

Why not add the Hurricane and Brewster Buffalo if you are doing early in the theater?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Why not add the Hurricane and Brewster Buffalo if you are doing early in the theater?



agree - and 'how early' is the period in question - just late 1941 and early 1942?


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 23, 2009)

i was really focusing on the time that the first group of Flying Tigers fly. it would be from December 1941 to the summer of 1942.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 23, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> I was really focusing on the time that the first group of Flying Tigers fly


You really were
you could almost rule the Nate out, ineffectual firepower (against the tough hide of a P-40) and not alot to flaunt in the way of speed or range. It's such a narrowband time frame that it's really a two-horse race between the Oscar and the P-40.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Then you need P-40E and Type '0' (army version) as well as Type 97 as Tex Hill had scores on both From January 1942 to May 1942. His last score in a P-40B was January 29, 1942.

The P-40C was also flown by AVG in Dec 1941 through April 1942


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> i was really focusing on the time that the first group of Flying Tigers fly. it would be from December 1941 to the summer of 1942.



Then I would definately add the Brewster Buffalo.

I picked from the list the P-40 because it held the line against the Japanese until better equipment arrived.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 23, 2009)

Would not the Hurricane need to be added as well? But I did vote for the P-40 as well.


----------



## davebender (Nov 23, 2009)

I vote for the A6M2 fighter aircraft and G4M medium bombers operated by the IJN 11th Air Fleet. They were victorious in almost every fight during that time frame.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 23, 2009)

What do you think of teh P-40B with the armament package of 2 .50s in the nose, and 4 .30s in the wings? I like this package better than the 6 .50s in the wings because it gives you variety in choosing your attack, in my opinion.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2009)

Why rule out the later CBI period?

You have much more variety to pick from:

Ki-43-II
Ki-44
Ki-46
Ki-61
Ki-84
Spitfire Vc, VIII
P-43
P-47D-30 (Thunderbolt II) 
P-51A, B, D
Beaufighter IV
Mosquito VI, XVI

That's just the fighters. There are also the bombers to consider

Ki-21
Ki-48
B-24
B-25
B-29
Bristol Blenheim V



I'd put up the Mosquito PR XVI as the best aircraft of the theater, or its slightly faster cousin, the PR 34.

As an unarmed recon aircraft it didn't get any kills, but these units flew with virtual impunity, at high and low altitude from mid-1943 onwards, and provided the RAF with invaluable intelligence.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Nov 24, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> Why rule out the later CBI period?
> 
> You have much more variety to pick from:
> 
> ...



Didn't the Mosquitos suffer problems with their glue due to the high humidity?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> What do you think of teh P-40B with the armament package of 2 .50s in the nose, and 4 .30s in the wings? I like this package better than the 6 .50s in the wings because it gives you variety in choosing your attack, in my opinion.



The pilots favored the 6x.50's (far more firepower) and removed the complexity of a.) manually charging the .50's in the nose and b.) selecting which weapons to fire.

Remember the P-40B's were rapidly being replaced by the C in January 1942 and E's in March-April 1942 so your timespan of relevancy for the P-40B is only a few months of the entire war.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 24, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> Why rule out the later CBI period?
> 
> You have much more variety to pick from:
> 
> ...




Then there's the Curtiss Hawk III, P-66, P-43, I-15 and I-16, all of which served with the Chinese Air Force which, last time I checked, was part of the CBI theatre...!

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2009)

The Japanese incursion into China began during 1914 and never really stopped. Just varying levels of intensity. 

Gunther Pluschow
Gunther Pluschow and his Rumpler Taube were state of the art during September 1914.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 24, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Didn't the Mosquitos suffer problems with their glue due to the high humidity?



Some problems were initially ascribed to the glue, but they actually had nothing to do with it. The RAF adapted the glue to tropical conditions after testing two Mk IIs in Burma in 1942. 

The actual problems were incorrectly assembled and glued wing parts, particularly on the upper wing skin on some outer panels, which caused some wing losses (probably two, maybe up to six) in FB Mk VIs in the CBI. 

However, the same problem caused 24-26 known Mosquito losses in the ETO and MTO (more than the Typhoon lost to its tail flutter problems). Strangely, the Mosquito never picked the same "unreliable" reputation.

There were some small problems with the plywood skin warping around the nose, but local mods dealt effectively with this.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 24, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> However, the same problem caused 24-26 known Mosquito losses in the ETO and MTO (more than the Typhoon lost to its tail flutter problems). Strangely, the Mosquito never picked the same "unreliable" reputation...


The Mosquito didn't lose roughly one aircraft per sortie to engine failure, tail flutter was but one of the problems suffered by the Typhoon; "trouble at both ends" as Beamont so eloquently put it.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 24, 2009)

The reason I did not include those planes was that I was interested in the Flying Tigers and teh P-40B, along with the main two planes it fought with. If i was doing the entire Burma-India-China theatre I would include thos planes.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 24, 2009)

No offensce carman1877, but the title of your thread is *Which was the best fighter of the India-Burma-China theartre*
Hence the rash of posts including all the different fighters that fought in the CBI theatre. 

In any case, picking from the three planes you included in your list, the P40 IMO was the best, primarily because of its heavy firepower and dive speed. That being said, my favorite plane of the three is the Ki-43 Oscar. Check out this video:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VNKb_byAuw_


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 24, 2009)

Given the criteria, my non-objective vote would be the P-40B. I love the Curtss. If I had the chance to fly in ONE WWII fighter, it would be the P-40. It is sweet, sexy and menacing all at the same time. The early P-40's, B and C models are the prettiest of the breed!

Now speaking objectively, again the P-40B. The Japanese planes only real advantage was range, turning ability a slow speeds,and climb ( not including zoom). The Curtiss was slightly faster, could out dive, out zoom, heavier armed, far and away more robust. Chenault proved that tactics with the P-40 made it the winner.


----------



## Bug_racer (Nov 24, 2009)

Wasnt an ME109 E-4 found in India ?
Should put that on the list


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 24, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The Mosquito didn't lose roughly one aircraft per sortie to engine failure, tail flutter was but one of the problems suffered by the Typhoon; "trouble at both ends" as Beamont so eloquently put it.



"One aircraft per sortie"

Per squadron sortie, i'll take it you mean. Otherwise no Typhoon would ever have made it back to base.

Sounds correct for VERY early operations of the Typhoon, when TBO for the Sabre was as low as 25 hours, and engines ate sleeve valves, and consequently died, about every 40 hours. 

This dramatically improved as Napier, with cooperation from Bristol, reworked the sleeve design and alloys used in construction. TBO went to 75 hours by mid 1943, and up to 120 hours by 1945, only slightly worse than the Merlin.

There were reliability problems stretching through to the Tempest, but by that time they were more to do with propeller overspeeding that actual engine problems.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 25, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> Wasnt an ME109 E-4 found in India ?
> Should put that on the list



Got there post war.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 25, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> "One aircraft per sortie"
> 
> Per squadron sortie, i'll take it you mean. Otherwise no Typhoon would ever have made it back to base.
> 
> ...



In the light of those low values (25-40 hours TBO), the Jumo-004 seems like as not-so-troublesome thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2009)

davebender said:


> I vote for the A6M2 fighter aircraft and G4M medium bombers operated by the IJN 11th Air Fleet. They were victorious in almost every fight during that time frame.



Were they even being operated in the CBI at the time????


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Given the criteria, my non-objective vote would be the P-40B. I love the Curtss. If I had the chance to fly in ONE WWII fighter, it would be the P-40. It is *sweet, sexy and menacing all at the same time.* The early P-40's, B and C models are the prettiest of the breed!



I'm with ya MIke! Who cares about weight of fire or wingloading?! The P-40 was absolutely one of the sexiest planes the Allies had in the early part.

On a practical side, the P-40 was my vote, like said earlier because, even with all its faults, still managed to give a good account of itself.

Just a quick wonder: A good portion of success in the air is pilot skill. Would those early Allied pilots had the same success if they switched machines? In other words, would the Flying Tigers be just as successful flying the Buffalo?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2009)

My opinion would be no.

Not to say they might not have been sucessful but "just as successful"?

Having the speed advantage of the P-40 did give them options the Buffalo couldn't have given them.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2009)

ok. IIRC the 'fighter' tactics with the early P-40s against Zekes and the like were dive and zoom instead of turning fights. In that case were the Buffalo and Warhawk equal or the -40 still had the advantage, as you say of the speed advantage?


----------



## davebender (Nov 25, 2009)

*He-111.*







*Ju-52.*





Both of these were state of the art during the late 1930s.

Wikipedia has a more or less complete list of aircraft flown by the WWII era Chinese airforce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Chinese_Nationalist_air_force_(1937–1945)


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 25, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> "One aircraft per sortie"
> 
> Per squadron sortie, i'll take it you mean. Otherwise no Typhoon would ever have made it back to base.
> 
> ...


No
roughly one per sortie, the first nine months of the Typhoon's premature elevation to operational status were utterly plagued with problems, engines failed and tails broke off; in those nine months the RAF easily lost more Typhoons (and pilots) to those two issues than they did to enemy action.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that 'no Typhoon would have ever made it back to base'; several did but roughly one per mission didn't.

I take it you use the term 'cooperation' loosely, Bristol did provide assistance to Napier (coerced by the Air Ministry) in the form of near-match sleeves machined to fit the Sabre but they were pretty upset at having to dig a manufacturing rival out of the mud, especially when their own 2,000hp offering, the Centaurus, was waiting in wings.

The Sabre would reach the Mk V variant of the type's development path before it would be called properly reliable.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 26, 2009)

Njaco said:


> ok. IIRC the 'fighter' tactics with the early P-40s against Zekes and the like were dive and zoom instead of turning fights. In that case were the Buffalo and Warhawk equal or the -40 still had the advantage, as you say of the speed advantage?


First of all as others have mentioned the poll only includes three of many fighter types in 'CBI' theater; and moreover CBI was a US term which generally referred to the situation from mid 1942 onward, ie where it shipped or flew a/c to India coming east, then based them in India, flying against Burma, or flew them on to China. So it's also not clear which of the early campaigns would fit into 'CBI'.

The poll is basically the AVG's main fighter the P40B (they also flew some P-40E's near the end of their existence in mid '42) v the AVG's main fighter adversaries, the Type 97 and to a lesser degree the Type 1 Fighter(which JAAF operating units didn't call Ki-27 and Ki-43, and neither did the Allies, which is what makes that nomenclature strange, albeit succinct), though the AVG also met a few Type 2 fighters (late 'Tojo') and Type 2 2-seat Fighters (later 'Nick').

The AVG was overall successful againt those JAAF fighters, especially compared to the results for other Allied figher units, both at the same time and even considerably later on. JAAF Type 1's in Burma enjoyed a quite favorable kill ratio v RAF Hurricanes all the way through 1943, not just in 1942, as well as lopsided advantage over Buffalo's in 1942.

On JNAF Type 0's, they were involved in the early Southeast Asian campaigns, but not in Burma or South China in 1942 and thus never met the AVG. USAAF/RAAF P-40's were generally unsucessful v Zeroes through the first half of 1942, in terms of kill ratio, and relatively seldom met Zeroes in the second half of '42, just in New Guinea in relatively few actions. Both air arms did do better in those few second half of '42 actions, but not as well as the AVG had done v JAAF opponents.

Such things are never provable because some circumstance besides the one you want to draw a conclusion about always differs. Somebody can always come back and say, 'oh but this was different', more or less plausibly. But IMO it's fairly apparent that the AVG's combination of pilot material (high hour peacetime US military pilots, mainly), tactics, leadership etc was exceptionally good among Allied fighter units facing the Japanese early in the Pacific War. It wasn't that the P-40B was such a great a/c; their success was also helped along I think by the fact that they mainly faced the less capable Type 97 early on while gaining experience, and the more capable Type 1 mainly later on.

Joe


----------



## fibus (Nov 26, 2009)

The 449 squadron established total air superiority within 30 days operating out of India.
No other FS could make this claim in the CBI. The P38's used were earlier models of the airplane This was 1944.
A pilot from this squadron went MIA and was reported alive by U2 pilot F. Powers when he was returned to the U.S. on his debriefing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2009)

fibus said:


> The 449 squadron established total air superiority within 30 days operating out of India.
> No other FS could make this claim in the CBI. The P38's used were earlier models of the airplane This was 1944.
> A pilot from this squadron went MIA and was reported alive by U2 pilot F. Powers when he was returned to the U.S. on his debriefing.



Did you read the first post??????


----------



## Njaco (Nov 27, 2009)

JoeB said:


> First of all as others have mentioned the poll only includes three of many fighter types in 'CBI' theater; and moreover CBI was a US term which generally referred to the situation from mid 1942 onward, ie where it shipped or flew a/c to India coming east, then based them in India, flying against Burma, or flew them on to China. So it's also not clear which of the early campaigns would fit into 'CBI'.
> 
> The poll is basically the AVG's main fighter the P40B (they also flew some P-40E's near the end of their existence in mid '42) v the AVG's main fighter adversaries, the Type 97 and to a lesser degree the Type 1 Fighter(which JAAF operating units didn't call Ki-27 and Ki-43, and neither did the Allies, which is what makes that nomenclature strange, albeit succinct), though the AVG also met a few Type 2 fighters (late 'Tojo') and Type 2 2-seat Fighters (later 'Nick').
> 
> ...



Thanks Joe. I was under the impression that the Tigers may have met 0s. I'm not very familiar with the CBI other that is was an area of operations but I seem to remember from reading "God is My Co-Pilot" by Scott that the dive&zoom was used to good avantage. But I believe that was later.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2009)

Joe - what was the Type 0 credited to Tex Hill and others in the May 1942 timeframe? Army vesion of A6M?


----------



## JoeB (Nov 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Joe - what was the Type 0 credited to Tex Hill and others in the May 1942 timeframe? Army vesion of A6M?


The AVG's retractable undercarriage opponent in spring '42 was the 64th Sentai of the JAAF, who flew the Type 1 Fighter, later codenamed 'Oscar', whose so called kitai designation was Ki-43 though Japanese Army fighter units never referred to their planes by those designations and the Allied didn't use them either, even later on. In a few early combats the AVG's encountered other Type 1 units, and there was one independent company of pre-production Type 2 Fighters (Tojo) in Burma in '42, undergoing combat trials, thoug no evidence it suffered any losses to the AVG, whiile the 64th definitely did.

The Type 1 was not recognized by the Allies as a separate plane at that time. I don't know of Allied references to such a type in victory claims untiil 1943. It would have been especially difficult for the AVG to make such a distincition. They knew of a retractable fighter called the Zero, did not know of one called the Type 1, and were encountering a plane that basically resembled the Zero (the two did look somewhat alike, though they had nothing in common as designs). It was only natural to assume those planes were Zeroes. But it's now clear they were not.

Even the few Allied units in '42 which encountered both types did not seem to make the distinction. For example the B-26 equipped 22nd BG fought many actions against Zeroes of the Tainan AG from spring '42 and encountered Type 1's of the 59th Sentai on a few raids on Timor, but apparently didn't notice the difference, all were called Zeroes. I assume the distinction was firmly established when the Type 1 was encountered more often in a theater where the Zero was also around for comparison, ie in New Guinea and the Solomons in 1943.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The AVG's retractable undercarriage opponent in spring '42 was the 64th Sentai of the JAAF, who flew the Type 1 Fighter, later codenamed 'Oscar', whose so called kitai designation was Ki-43 though Japanese Army fighter units never referred to their planes by those designations and the Allied didn't use them either, even later on. In a few early combats the AVG's encountered other Type 1 units, and there was one independent company of pre-production Type 2 Fighters (Tojo) in Burma in '42, undergoing combat trials, thoug no evidence it suffered any losses to the AVG, whiile the 64th definitely did.
> 
> The Type 1 was not recognized by the Allies as a separate plane at that time. I don't know of Allied references to such a type in victory claims untiil 1943. It would have been especially difficult for the AVG to make such a distincition. They knew of a retractable fighter called the Zero, did not know of one called the Type 1, and were encountering a plane that basically resembled the Zero (the two did look somewhat alike, though they had nothing in common as designs). It was only natural to assume those planes were Zeroes. But it's now clear they were not.
> 
> ...



Hill's first claims for "Oscar MkII" and Tojo wer in Nov and Dec 1943 so that makes sense.

Herbst had no claims for Zero or Type 0 - all his fighter claims in 1944 were Oscar/Hamp/Tojo's


----------



## fibus (Nov 28, 2009)

The P38 used by the 449FS sq when arriving in the CBI had established air superiority in 30 days. And these were early models.
One member of the squadron went MIA. He was seen alive and in a Russian prison camp by U2 pilot F. Powers in 1962.


----------



## Terry McGrady (Nov 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Then you need P-40E and Type '0' (army version) as well as Type 97 as Tex Hill had scores on both From January 1942 to May 1942. His last score in a P-40B was January 29, 1942.
> 
> The P-40C was also flown by AVG in Dec 1941 through April 1942



The A/C used by the AVG were Tomahawk IIB Aircradft bought and paid for by HMG. There was a flurry of Telegrams back and forth about this . The British Government was annoyed about having A/C taken away from it and given to the Chinese. 
However, in true Political Style when it was realised that all the protests were of no avail it was suggested that "Political Brownie Points" may be gained by " releasing" these A/C

Cheers
Terry McGrady


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2009)

Terry McGrady said:


> The A/C used by the AVG were Tomahawk IIB Aircradft bought and paid for by HMG. There was a flurry of Telegrams back and forth about this . The British Government was annoyed about having A/C taken away from it and given to the Chinese.
> However, in true Political Style when it was realised that all the protests were of no avail it was suggested that "Political Brownie Points" may be gained by " releasing" these A/C
> 
> Cheers
> Terry McGrady


Terry - the original P-40's were the P-40B destined for Brits. 

Having said that the P-40C quickly were delivered in January and P-40E in late March 1942 several months prior to becoming the 23rd FG.

Tex Hill made his first P-40C kills in January 1942 and his first three P-40E kills in April 1942.

I believe the ABG was disbanded on July 4th 1942 but I will check.


----------



## Terry McGrady (Nov 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Terry - the original P-40's were the P-40B destined for Brits.
> 
> Having said that the P-40C quickly were delivered in January and P-40E in late March 1942 several months prior to becoming the 23rd FG.
> 
> ...



They were actually Tomahawk IIB similar but not the same as the P40B or C! 100 were supplied taken randomly from Tomahawk IIB production for the RAF , commencing with AK466 
So did the AVG get more than the 100 Tomahawks IIB? Got Ex USAAF P40C ?
Btw the AVG was disbanded on 4th July 1942.

Just been reading about them in "Bloody Shambles part 2" 
One thing about the Burma campaign was that ALL sides grossly overclaimed.

Cheers 
Terry McGrady


----------



## Terry McGrady (Nov 28, 2009)

fibus said:


> The 449 squadron established total air superiority within 30 days operating out of India.
> No other FS could make this claim in the CBI. The P38's used were earlier models of the airplane This was 1944.
> A pilot from this squadron went MIA and was reported alive by U2 pilot F. Powers when he was returned to the U.S. on his debriefing.


.

For a realistic view of the 459 Sq ops I suggest you read Airwar over Burma by Chris Shores the final part of the " Bloody Shambles "Trilogy
Cheers 
Terry McGrady


----------



## carman1877 (Dec 2, 2009)

Any one got any information about Gregory Boyington and what he did while with the AVG. The online sites I checked are vary vague. I know that he eventually was discharged but thats about it.


----------



## renrich (Dec 2, 2009)

The AVG was disbanded on July 4, 1942. It is a myth that they engaged in battle with the Japanese prior to December 7, 1941.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 2, 2009)

Terry McGrady said:


> Just been reading about them in "Bloody Shambles part 2"
> One thing about the Burma campaign was that ALL sides grossly overclaimed.


True, but claims become somewhat incidental once and if you have accurate accounts of losses on both sides. As far as AVG, many of its combats were outside the scope of Bloody Shambles, but fortunately there's "Flying Tigers" by Dan Ford, which uses basically similar Japanese sources as Shores and co-authors. AVG overclaims were very extreme in some early combats, but settled down quite a bit later. In terms of losses inflicted on the Japanese per Japanese accounts, the AVG was much more successful than other Allied fighter units in 1942. Again as I mentioned, most of their opponents were JAAF Type 97's, but some were Type 1's and they achieved a real (not claimed) ratio of around 3:1 against both types through the end of the AVG mid year 1942. Which was of course much less than they claimed, but OTOH few other Allied fighter units achieved even parity v Japanese ones in 1942 in real kill ratio. The average in the campaigns covered by Bloody Shambles 1 and 2 was several:1 the other way if you count it up, and Hurricanes still suffered 1: several ratio even in 1943 v Type 1's as I counted in "Air War over Burma" (aka Bloody Shambles part 3). Although, Allied fighters facing the JNAF Zeroes, though not in Burma where they seldom appeared, were arguably up against a stronger opponent, obviously when it came to Zero v Type 97.

Also there is sometimes, often grossly overstated but sometimes, a question about completeness of Japanese loss accounts. In JNAF case in 1942 there is hardly any such question, usually complete and detailed original combat reports for each unit are readily available. And we can draw inferences from that, eg. if a type/air arm did poorly v Zeroes and Type 1's per Bloody Shambles 12 it's probable that the Type 1 losses reported in Shambles (which are basically from the Japanese official history, plus perhaps some special info from co-author Izawa) are basically correct. And likewise if one Allied unit did much better than another, over a large sample of combats per available accounts purporting to report both sides' losses, it doesn't seem likely that finding a few more Japanese losses would change that *relative* picture dramatically. But in some cases there are genuine issues. I haven't read through BS3 to 1944 yet, but in late '43 over Rangoon it's clear that losses are reported for only some of the JAAF fighters units that were defending Rangoon at the time (v. P-51A's and P-38's escorting B-24's; those relatively advanced US fighters didn't do so well, less than 1:1, didn't even claim to do very well in that case). In most cases up to then, just a very few regiments equipped with Type 1's were in Burma in 1943, and it seems their losses are pretty well known. As a general rule, 'real' kill ratio calculation in the Pacific War gets more tricky later on, though OTOH over the years many fans of Allied fighters and units have claimed real Japanese losses are unknown when that's simply untrue in the particular cases they cited. In most cases those people (or authors for many years) never seriously looked.

Joe


----------



## bachduong (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't currently have any questions, but it seemed to me that there are a large number of European Theatre/Third Reich threads, perhaps we also need one devoted to the "other" part of the war. In my mind the PTO includes pretty much any area where the Japanese were THE Axis power in the conflict. This would include China-Burma-India as well as Naval Operations against the Japanese in the Indiam Ocean.

Just for kicks we could also include the small squadrons of submarines which both Germany and Italy commited to the Far East (as opposed to German Cruiser U-Boat raids against British Shipping in the Indian Ocean) Oh hell, I'm kind of a Naval History guy myself, so if you really wanna talk about those operations here, we can do that, too!

If anybody wants to get a Naval thread going as well I'm interested. WWII os my main area of interest, but WWI and earlier conflicts can also be discussed.

Just to add a little specific content to this post? On this day in 1943 (Jan 7th) US MArine and Army strength on Guadalcanal reaches 50,000. They are opposed by 25,000 Japanese. Strategic encirclement has commenced (via Sealift). In Burma a Stalemate has begun near Arakan.

Take it away folks!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2009)

bachduong said:


> I don't currently have any questions, but it seemed to me that there are a large number of European Theatre/Third Reich threads, perhaps we also need one devoted to the "other" part of the war. In my mind the PTO includes pretty much any area where the Japanese were THE Axis power in the conflict. This would include China-Burma-India as well as Naval Operations against the Japanese in the Indiam Ocean.
> 
> Just for kicks we could also include the small squadrons of submarines which both Germany and Italy commited to the Far East (as opposed to German Cruiser U-Boat raids against British Shipping in the Indian Ocean) Oh hell, I'm kind of a Naval History guy myself, so if you really wanna talk about those operations here, we can do that, too!
> 
> ...



Why don't you try looking through the 5 years of posts on this site and you'll probably find your questions/ comments answered.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2009)

I dont quite get this thread. Why are the choices so limited? I understand that later in the war there were P-51s on thee theatre, theen there are Beafighters, Mosquitoes, Hurricanes, P-36s, Fulmars. There may have been Ki-44s (But Im not sure) ....I just dont get it


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 4, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont quite get this thread. Why are the choices so limited? I understand that later in the war there were P-51s on thee theatre, theen there are Beafighters, Mosquitoes, Hurricanes, P-36s, Fulmars. There may have been Ki-44s (But Im not sure) ....I just dont get it


T'is a tad narrow
with two decent pilots, I wouldn't pit the Ki-27 against a P-40; it's a slug-out between the Ki-43 and the P-40, the theatre of operations just happens to be the CBI.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 4, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> T'is a tad narrow
> with two decent pilots, I wouldn't pit the Ki-27 against a P-40; it's a slug-out between the Ki-43 and the P-40, the theatre of operations just happens to be the CBI.


On paper the Type 97 shouldn't have been much of a match for P-40 or other relatively modern Allied retractable wheel monoplanes in 1941-42. But other than against the AVG, it actually was pretty competitive in the general circumstances prevailing. Detailed combat by combat records of the JAAF in Philippines in 1941-42 didn't survive, but from their overall losses, surviving specific accounts and US claims it's clear USAAF P-40's didn't do much if at all better than 1:1 v Type 97's (they also met in one combat in DEI which is documented, one loss on each side). One of the units they faced, 50th Sentai, was later in action in Burma v the AVG, actually. Likewise the Hurricane's 1942 record v Type 97 was only~3:2 and Buffalo's much worse. The AVG was the only unit that turned in strongly advantageous results v the Type 97 in the early Pacific War. Otherwise probably 'decent' Allied pilots faced other disadvantages that put their retractable carriage fighters at surprisingly little if any advantage v the fixed wheel very lightly armed Type 97, piloted by a JAAF with much recent combat experience.

Joe


----------

