# Best Japanese B-29 'Killer'



## Nicodemus (Nov 22, 2006)

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering what your opinion on this is. Seeing that most Japanese aircraft engines suffered from the thin air at high altitudes, where the B-29s operated, it's quite a difficult comparison.

1. Ki-45 _Toryu_ ('Nick') twin-engined fighter, succesfully used by 4th 53rd _Sentais_ against Superfortresses over Japan

2. A6M7 Model 63 _Zero_ ('Zeke') single engined Navy carrier fighter, one of the old hands of the Navy but performed poor at high altitudes, good maneuvrability however.

3. Ki-61 _Hien_ ('Tony') single engined interceptor, most succesful user by far was the famous 244th _Sentai_ under Maj Teruhiko Kobayashi (over 100 kills), although 56th _Sentai_ engaged Superfortresses over Kyushu as well.

4. Ki-44 _Shoki_ ('Tojo') single engined high altitude interceptor, astonishing rate of climb (5,000 m in just over four minutes) and good performance at 10,000 m as well. The 23rd, 47th and 70th _Sentai_ used them in ramming attacks against B-29s to great effect.

5. Ki-100 _Goshikisen_ single-engined fighter, derived from the Focke Wulf 190 and a very succesful fighter, performance slightly less at altitude but very maneuvrable, fast roll rate, tight turning capabilites.

6. J2M3 _Raiden_ ('Jack') single-engined Navy fighter, I don't know a lot about these, so all info is especially welcomed. For sure they were the Navy's most succesful B-29 'killer'.

Or the maybe the N1K2-J _Shinden-Kai _('George') Navy interceptor, or J1N1-S _Gekko_ night fighter?

I hope we'll have some good debate

Nick


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 22, 2006)

I would think the Ki-45, good fire power and effective at ramming the 29, too. The thing is, with most of these birds, one had to be at or close to altitude when the 29's arrived, or they would be long gone by the time you climbed high enough to attack, and the 29 was very fast at altitude. Probably a good thing the Ki-100 wasn't available in large numbers in 1945.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Nov 22, 2006)

"Ki-100 Goshikisen single-engined fighter, derived from the Focke Wulf 190.."

The Ki-100 is based on the KI-61. When they didn't have enough of the troublesome inline engine, they used a radial. The FW190 was used as a model for designing a tight fitting cowling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2006)

BTW, According to "USAF.net" USAAF.net which has a wealth of statistical information, only 80 Twentieth Air Force "Very Heavy Bombers" (B-29s) were reported lost to fighters directly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## timshatz (Nov 22, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW, According to "USAF.net" USAAF.net which has a wealth of statistical information, only 80 Twentieth Air Force "Very Heavy Bombers" (B-29s) were reported lost to fighters directly.



Says it all. In a little under a year of attacks, the Japanese only brought down 80. The USAF probably lost 2x that number to operational accidents. 

In short, the Japanese really didn't have anything that could go toe to toe with a formation of B29s. The real question would be, "What Japanese aircraft could attack a B29 formation with reasonable chance of success and survival?". The answer is pretty much none. Maybe the Ki100, but it's chances of survival were not particularly good due to closing speeds vs firepower. B29 was a tough bird to catch and knock down without getting riddled in a piston engined aircraft.

Really wasn't anything out there that could do the job until the Mig 15.


----------



## webbee (Nov 23, 2006)

In junior high, my best friend's father reported to us that the Zero's were waiting for them, 5K above their cruising altitude when they attacked Tokyo and other targets. The Japanese attack tactic was out of the sun and that they tried to bust up the formation to create stragglers, which they then tried to pick off. He flew 29's from Tinian against the Japanese home islands. He also commented that this was never publicised during the war, so as to not demoralize the American home population. I wish I could talk to him about his war time experiences but unfortunately he has passed. He may have mentioned other specific aircraft but time has stolen the memory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nicodemus (Nov 23, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Says it all. In a little under a year of attacks, the Japanese only brought down 80. The USAF probably lost 2x that number to operational accidents.
> 
> In short, the Japanese really didn't have anything that could go toe to toe with a formation of B29s. The real question would be, "What Japanese aircraft could attack a B29 formation with reasonable chance of success and survival?". The answer is pretty much none. Maybe the Ki100, but it's chances of survival were not particularly good due to closing speeds vs firepower. B29 was a tough bird to catch and knock down without getting riddled in a piston engined aircraft.
> 
> Really wasn't anything out there that could do the job until the Mig 15.



MiG 15 had of course superior speed and altitude, but did they bring down a lot of Superfortresses?

BTW, proportionally seen a lot of B-29s were lost to fighter attacks at night, the Navy's J1N1-S _Gekkos_ and of course Ki-45 'Nicks' being very succesful.

An extract from Osprey's Aviation Elite Units #5 "B-29 hunters of the JAAF":

"At 1616 hours on 15 June, the first of the 58th Bombardement Wing’s 68 B-29s took to the air from the wing’s bases at Chengdu. Each aircraft carried a payload of only two tons for the mission, which saw the 58th targeting steel factories at Yawata, on the northern coast of Kyushu Island. Since the operation was very long-range, and fuel conservation was critical, it had been decided that each aircraft would make its own way to the target rather than fly in massed formations. Altitude would be between 8,500 and 11,000 ft.

If the Americans were expecting the raid to be a surprise, they were mistaken, for Japanese army observers in China were quick to report the unusual air activity they had detected to the Western Air Defence Command in Fukuoka, on the Japanese mainland. Early-warning radar on Cheju Island, off the coast of Korea in the East China Sea, had picked up large numbers of aircraft. 

Lieutenant Tom Friedman, flying with the 40th Bombardement Group as a radar counter-measures technician, listened on his equipment for signs of Japanese radar. A strong whining signal through his analyser told him they were being ‘painted’: ‘We had been detected well back of the Chinese coast, and several hours from the target. As we neared the coast other signals came in and increased in strength. It was an eerie feeling to know that far below, our every move was being carefully watched on scopes and plotting boards.’

The Japanese issued orders to scramble. That honour fell to the 4th _Sentai_, based at Ozuki airfield in western Honshu, and it would be the first unit to engage the Superfortresses over Japan. The 4th _Sentai_ had briefly taken part in the invasion of the Philippines at the beginning of the war, and in January 1942 had returned back to Ozuki for home defence duties over northern Kyushu. 

The 4th was equipped with the twin-engined Kawasaki Ki-45 _Toryu_ (‘Dragon Slayer’). Codenamed ‘Nick’, the aircraft had been designed as a long-ranged fighter, but had failed to live up to expectations. However, it excelled in the ground-attack and nightfighter roles, the latter boasting a service ceiling of 10,000 m (32,810 ft) and a maximum speed of 560 kmh at 6000 m (350 mph at 19,685 ft). At this stage only eight aircraft had been converted for nightfighting, two carrying the conventional armaments of 13 mm and 20 mm guns, and six equipped with a 37 mm cannon.

Expecting the enemy to attack under the cover of darkness, the unit began training its pilots in the specialised skills of nightfighting. Of its 40 pilots, only 25 were qualified at night, and most of these had completed more than 500 hours of flight training.

To work out its tactics, the unit used a captured B-17E taken at Bandung, Java, in early 1942. Attacking the target head-on and from above was the method decided on, and aside from practising with the Flying Fortress, the unit also employed towed target banners as pilots familiarised themselves with performing co-ordinated attacks in conjunction with ground searchlight units.

Meanwhile, as the Superfortresses lumbered towards Yamata, the 4th Sentai scrambled 24 ‘Nicks’ in flights of four aircraft. It did not matter that many of the pilots had completed only half their nightfighting training – they were thrown into combat along with the veterans. They were in for a shock. To see the massive B-29 for the first time would have been a horrific experience for any home defence pilot. In his memoir, 1st Lieutenant Isamu Kashiide recorded his first impression of the mighty aircraft:

_‘I was flying over the industrial area of northern Kyushu. Our unit commander Captain Masaji Kobayashi gave the order “enemy planes invading an important area! Every flight attack! At the same time, ground searchlights in the area lit up the sky.
‘Finally, I sighted an enemy four-engined bomber. I was scared! It was known that the B-29 was a huge plane, but when I saw my opponent it was much larger than I had expected. There was no question that when compared with the B-17, the B-29 was indeed the “Superfortress”! The figure that appeared in the searchlight made me think of a great whale in the ocean, I was just astounded by its size.’_Sixty-two B-29s arrived at their destination, and at 2338 hours (China time) they began dropping their 500-lb GP (general purpose) bombs. Due to 5/10ths cloud cover and a blacout over Yawata, only 15 Superfortresses bombed visually, while others dropped by radar – only one bomb landed on the intended target. Meanwhile, bomber crewmen reported that enemy attacks were weak, with only 12 passes being made within 500 yards. The B-29 gunners made no claims.

However, ineffective as the Japanese tactics might have seemed, the Americans did not return home unscathed, with _Limber Dragon_ (No 42-6230) of the 468th Bombardement Group becoming the first B-29 shot down over Japan. The succesful pilot was Warrant Officer Sadamitsu Kimura, who caught the Superfortress in the searchlights from below and started to attack.

‘I approached it to within 20 or 30 meters’, he recounted in the July 1944 edition of aviation magazine Koku Shonen (flying youth). ‘Suddenly, everything became white because of the reflected light off the big fuselage of the enemy plane, which filled my gunsight. It started to climb in fear of being rammed by me. I did not hesitate! I started to fire, and I could clearly tell that I hit it. The nose came down slowly and it started to spin. I saw one big piece of the dorsal fin come off.’ 

The 58th Bombardement Wing lost a total of seven B-29s on the mission. Three were shot down and four were operational losses. Flak damaged six others. In their first nightfighting sortie, which lasted two hours, the pilots of the 4th _Sentai_ claimed six B-29s shot down and three damaged – over-enthusiasm which can be put down to a combination of darkness and confusion. Nevertheless, 28-year-old Sadamitsu Kimura was Japan’s hero of the night. He claimed to have shot down two B-29s, and for his feats of courage he was awarded the Bukosho on 3 July 1944."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2006)

This is sort of off topic because this thread is about the Japanese not the Luftwaffe but while we are talking about the Japs not having anything to deal with a B-29 it sort of brings me to thinking.

I really wonder how the Luftwaffe would have faired against the B-29. This ofcourse is all theoretical if the war was not going as planned for the allies. 

The Germans would have had the following aircraft to go up against the B-29.

Bf-109G and K
Fw-190A
Fw-190D-9
Ta-152H
Me-262
Me-163

I think the Ta-152 and Me-262 could have posed a good threat to the B-29. On top of that again this is just theoretical that the war is not going as planned for the allies the Germans also would have had the Messerschmitt P.1011 and the Ta-183 coming on line.

Plus the German Anti Aircraft network seems to have been more advanced than the Japanese plus the Luftwaffe had other weapons available such R4M and other sophisticated (for there time) rockets and missiles.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Nicodemus (Nov 23, 2006)

Interesting to speculate about that, I personally think you at least need an aircraft which has or can be armed with an MK103/108 3cm cannon. The Japanese 20 mm cannons proved to be inadequate against B-29s, they needed to pour a hell of a lot of rounds into a Superfortress to bring it down. 

Flammable or phosphorous ammunition was also ineffective because at such high altitude (10,000+ m) there isn't enough oxygen for a fire to start properly. 

The Ta 152 and Me 262 would definitively have had a chance against B-29s, especially due to their high speed (which was the reason some Japanese aircraft ended up as cannon fodder for the B-29s 0.50-cals and 20 mm guns) and heavy armament (30mm cannons).

Mind you, the Japanese tried both the Me 262 and Me 163 and opted to go for the latter as ''Mitsubishi J8M'' as their primary B-29 interceptor. Several were received and throroughly tested, but I don't know if they saw any action against B-29. For sure it had the extreme climbing rate, it could climb almost vertically until it reached the bomber's height.

The Me 262 was also reviewed by the Japanese but they ironically (just like Hitler) saw it better as a fast attack bomber against Allied shipping, and several were tested as well.

What about the _Sturmböck_ Fw 190A-8/R-2? How would that one have faired against the B-29?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2006)

> What about the Sturmböck Fw 190A-8/R-2? How would that one have faired against the B-29?


Quite poorly due to the extreme altitude...

By pretty much all accounts, the Ki-100 was or would have been the best B-29 Killer if produced in numbers to make a difference.... As it stands, here is a list of B-29 Aces...

B-29 "Superfortress" Killers

NAME / CONFIRMED / DAMAGED / UNIT
Ito, Fujitaro / 17 / 20 / 5th Sentai
Shirai, Nagao / 11 / / 244th Sentai
Ichikawa, Chuichi / 9 / 6 / 244th Sentai
Ito, Totaro / 9 / / IJAAF
Kono, Kensui / 9 / / 70th Sentai
Endo, Sachi-o / 8 / 8 / IJNAF
Kimura, Sadamitsu / 8 / / 4th Sentai
Kashiide, Isamu / 7 / / 4th Sentai
Ogawa, Makoto / 7 / / 70th Sentai
Tobita, Hitoshi / 7 / / IJAAF
Negishi, Nobuji /6 / / 53rd Sentai
Sasaki, Isamu /6 / / Test Centre Fighter Unit
Torizika, Moriyoshi / 6 / / 53rd Senati
Yoshida, Yoshio / 6 / / 70th Sentai
Kawakita, Akira / 5 / / 9th Sentai
Kuramoto, Juzo / 5 / / IJAAF 1.
Nishio, Hannoshin / 5 / / 4th Sentai
Sumi, Tadao / 5 / 6 / 56th Sentai


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2006)

Great list Dan - I count 124 claims by the Japanese - that actually is about right because the site I posted has a listing of 19 aircraft shot down by flak *AND* fighters - with the totals of that list being off by 24 I'd say the USAAF stats against the Japanese claims aren't that far off considering the theater and mission being flown.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2006)

Nicodemus said:


> MiG 15 had of course superior speed and altitude, but did they bring down a lot of Superfortresses?




16 Superfortresses were lost to Mig-15s during the Korean War. Their loss rate was 1 per 1000 sorties...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 23, 2006)

Joe could you give all a better idea of how many sorties were flown over targets in Japan by B-29 per month.

It would of been so fustrating and demoralizing for the Japanese to be hit by the B-29 and not really be able to hit back effectively. That would of been brutal.

thanks Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Joe could you give all a better idea of how many sorties were flown over targets in Japan by B-29 per month.
> 
> It would of been so fustrating and demoralizing for the Japanese to be hit by the B-29 and not really be able to hit back effectively. That would of been brutal.
> 
> thanks Joe



Here ya go...

Army Air Forces in World War II

Army Air Forces in World War II

Check out 20AF (mainly B-29s) sorties for July, 1945 - 10,291!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 23, 2006)

For the newbies, I have a thread called "All Things B29"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/all-things-about-b29-2984.html

Lots of interesting info there.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 23, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here ya go...
> 
> Army Air Forces in World War II
> 
> ...



Damn and only 80-100 were brought down by fighters in over 10,000 sorties. That sucks if you are Japanese.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2006)

I dont think the Japanese really had quite an idea how bad it was till after the War... 

Commanders would tell their superiors about fanastic multi-kills and Americans by the dozens falling from the skies, being machine gunned in their chutes the whole way down... The militaristic masters were lied to almost non-stop towards the very end of the War...


----------



## delcyros (Nov 23, 2006)

My vote goes to the japanese Me-262 derivate, the Kikka.
Altough hi alt really is no necessarity as most B-29 sorties over japan were issued at low- medium altitudes due to the low AAA thread and the fact that the bombload and dropping precision decreased with altitude.
The N1K1J George was adequate for this task but what the IJAF really missed is proper tactics.


----------



## Jank (Nov 23, 2006)

Which fighters were used more often for B-29 escorts, the P-51D or the P-47N?


----------



## johnbr (Nov 23, 2006)

I am suprised that Japanese did not buy the he280.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 24, 2006)

Jumping around on a bunch of posts on this one.

Nicodemus, it is my understanding that the Mig 15 was designed to deal specifically with the B29 as a point interceptor. Hence the 37MM/23MM armament. I have heard (allegorically) that the B29s over North Korea were hammered by the Mig15, the Sabres could not keep them off the bombers. Not a good time for the 29s. After a while of this, the 29s moved to night bombing where the Mig's advantages weren't decisive.

Was that 10,000 sortie rate for the month of July 1945 or was that for the whole war up to July of 45? I ask because the 29 was doing a lot of other missions (bombing Okinawa, Mine Laying, ect) at the same time and not all of the attacks were over mainland Japan. Just curious as to the numbers.

Would give the Me-262 the kudos as the best German "anti-B29" machine. Had the highest speed (rendering the defensive firepower of the B29 next to, if not in fact, useless) and a heavy battery of cannons to make the short time it was in range of a B29 a very dangerous time for the bomber. Speed and firepower seem like the deciding factor on the best bomber killer. Also gives it the speed to outrun the escorts.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)

Where did we get off track on this thread. Me-262s, MiG-15s, He-280s....

Most of the "most" effective...whatever that means...Japanese fighters against B-29s were last ditch efforts that were a combination of high altitude dives over targets or those who did a tail pursuit with altitude advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were rarely Japanese attacks in similar formations nor tactics like in the ETO.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 25, 2006)

I estimate You hit the nail on it´s head.
Differences are tactics first. With unproper interception tactics even high performance interceptors are worth nothing. I think the IJAF was underestimating the US efforts in heavy bombers a lot and therefore failed
to develop proper tactics.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 25, 2006)

True but on the subject of Matt's post the best overall B-29 killer was the Mig-15....

Of the Japanese ones though none where really good at taking down heavy bombers (as is shown by the B-29 loses) and the tactics weren't really in existance (there was always ramming of course). With proper tactics the loses of B-29's I think would not of increased dramatically as the aircraft being used for the most part had to expend a lot of ammo in bring down the B-29 and therefore where in its defensive fire for a fairly long time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Where did we get off track on this thread. Me-262s, MiG-15s, He-280s....



It all happened when I made a comparison of the Japanese to the Luftwaffe which I think would have been more effective than the Japanese in bringing down the B-29 because they had the aircraft and the tactics to do it.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2006)

Ah.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Jumping around on a bunch of posts on this one.
> 
> Nicodemus, it is my understanding that the Mig 15 was designed to deal specifically with the B29 as a point interceptor. Hence the 37MM/23MM armament. I have heard (allegorically) that the B29s over North Korea were hammered by the Mig15, the Sabres could not keep them off the bombers. Not a good time for the 29s. After a while of this, the 29s moved to night bombing where the Mig's advantages weren't decisive.


Actually when the B-29s were suffering large daylight losses the first F-86A's were coming to Korea and they were barley able to compete with the Mig, it wasn't until the F-86F came along where the F-86 really dominated.

B-29s in Korea were placed at a disadvantage by some of the tactics used - there were times during night mission where Migs attempted to intercept them but the gunners were told not to fire in fear of giving up a visual position in the sky. Later in the war that changed.

As stated only 16 B-29s were lost to Migs but most of those losses happened during earlier part of the war.

BTW for the benefit of the newer guys (I've mentioned this before), my uncle was a B-29 radio operator and flew during that period, his B-29 was shot down but he survived.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 26, 2006)

On-topic: I would go with the Ki-44 with two 40mm and two 20mm, I think maybe the Ki-44 III KAI? Not sure, but it had the turbocharged engine in it - limited production - but I would love to fly one. Not sure the japanese had an effective B-29 killer in any significant numbers at all...


----------



## timshatz (Nov 26, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> On-topic: I would go with the Ki-44 with two 40mm and two 20mm, I think maybe the Ki-44 III KAI? Not sure, but it had the turbocharged engine in it - limited production - but I would love to fly one. Not sure the japanese had an effective B-29 killer in any significant numbers at all...




Two 20mm and two 40mm on a single seat fighter?! I'd heard they were two 30mm, but not heard they were 40mm. If that is accurate (and I really don't know for sure), it would make it a very sloppy bird to fly. A lot of weight. Definitely would affect the high altitude performance and probably make it an easy mark for the escorts. IMHO


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2006)

The Ki44 did have a version armed with the 40mm but it was a failure. The ammunition was caseless with a very poor MV and a short range which would have meant the fighter having to get very close and they would have been shot to pieces.

One factor that should be considered is the standard of Jap radar. They certainly had radar but its performance was poor compared to the German and allied designs and the standard of the crews tended to be lower due to the view most leaders had of people who were not in the front line.
If you are going to intercept bombers coming inover the sea then you need good long range radar which the Japanese didn't have in quantity. With a lack of warning they had little chance of getting large formations of fighters in the right place to carry out co-ordinated attacks. Peoples views on this would be appreciated.

I understood that the Raiden was potentially a good B29 attacker but it was spoiled if not ruined by some design weaknesses but mainly very poor production quality controls.


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 27, 2006)

Googled "Ki-44 Shoki":

The Model 2 (Ki-44-II) became the major production version of the Shoki, and was built in three separate versions. The Ki-44-IIa was equipped with two fuselage-mounted 7.7-mm machine guns and two 12.7-mm machine guns in the wings. Only a relatively few examples of the IIa version were built. The major production version was the Ki-44-IIb (Model 2B). It carried a quartet of 12.7-mm machine guns, two in the fuselage and two in the wings. The Model 2C was armed with a quartet of 20-mm Ho-3 cannon and was intended primarily as a B-29 interceptor in defense of the Japanese home islands.

The Ki-44-II was first encountered by the Allies in the China, Burma, and Malaya theatres. Shoki fighters were also assigned the task of defending the vital oil fields at Palembang on Sumatra. Later, B-29 crews encountered the Tojo in their early sorties over the Japanese home islands. The Ki-44-IIc was particularly effective against the B-29, and was regarded as the toughest and most troublesome fighter that these bomber crews had to deal with at that stage in the war. Very few other Japanese fighters were capable of reaching the altitude at which the B-29 operated and still possess sufficient performance in order to intercept this bomber. 

A few Ki-44-IIc fighters were armed with a pair of 12.7- mm machine guns and a pair of wing-mounted 40-mm Ho-301 cannon in an attempt to provide even more punch against the B-29. However, this cannon had a rather low muzzle velocity and was hence effective only at close ranges. A few other Ki-44-IIc fighters were fitted with a pair of 37-mm Ho-203 cannon with a somewhat higher muzzle velocity. However, both heavy cannon types were only moderately successful and saw only limited action. 

The final production version of the Shoki was the Ki-44-III. It was powered by a Nakajima Ha-145 eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial rated at 2000 hp for takeoff, 1880 hp at 6560 feet, and 1450 hp at 26,245 feet. This engine drove a four-blade propeller and carried a set of thrust-augmentation exhaust stacks. The wing area was increased and the tail surfaces were made larger. 
Two versions were produced--the Model 3A (Ki-44-IIIa) with two 20-mm Ho-5 cannon in the wing and two Ho-5 cannon in the engine cowling, and the Model 3B (Ki-44-IIIb) with two 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in the fuselage and two 37-mm Ho-203 cannon in the wings.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 27, 2006)

Good posts, thanks for the info.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2006)

Good Google job there Bullock, good info...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 27, 2006)

He he he


----------



## exec228 (Dec 1, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Googled "Ki-44 Shoki":
> <...>
> The Model 2C was armed with a quartet of 20-mm Ho-3 cannon...
> <...>


j-aircrafts experts say that syoki never had nor 20mm cannons, neither 40mm.
only 4*12.7 or 2*12.7+2*37.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 4, 2006)

The reality was that a scant few Japanese interceptors ever made it to the 33,000 foot altutude which B-29s operated at. And they were far faster at that altitude than most of their opponents. Until the fire raids they cruised way above what B-24s and B-17s could. 

The Japanese early warning radar was spuradic with lots of holes. By the time B-29s were detected it was impossible to scramble, climb for several minutes and catch them once there.

And BTW the only 2 IJAAF aces named Kobayashi were Hohei with 10 kills and Teruhiko with 5. Tetsuzo Iwamoto led with 66.


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2006)

exec228 said:


> j-aircrafts experts say that syoki never had nor 20mm cannons, neither 40mm.
> only 4*12.7 or 2*12.7+2*37.



Can I ask what J Experts, as I have an article that includes a photo of an operational Ki44, with the pilots sitting in a formal pose in front of the plane which is fitted with the 40mm.

The combinations of armament were as follows

2 x 7.7 + 2 x 12.7 (early production only)
4 x 12.7 (can be considered the normal load)
2 x 12.7 + 2 x 37 (used against B29 with some success)
2 x 12.7 + 2 x 20 (Article contains photo of operational aircraft on home defence)
2 x 12.7 + 2 x 40 (used as ground attack in limited numbers and not a success)

The 4 x 20mm was installed on a prototype but not put into service.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 6, 2006)

so you have photos with clear difference between 37 Ho-203 and 40mm Ho-301? can you show them?
which mark? II-Hei(c)?

2x12.7+2x20mm interesting too. Ho-3? II-Hei?


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2006)

I will see what my son can do with the scanner but I don't have a photo of the Ki44 with the 37mm. At a guess the photo of the 40mm armed plane should come out well but the 20mm is a very small photo in a book.

If it helps the 40mm plane was flown by Major Noboru Okuda who commanded the 47th Sentai.

The 20mm was the Ho5 (type1) but the 37mm was Ho203 (type 3). 

According to what I have the MG armed KI44 were known as the Ki44-II-Otsu and the cannon armed planes Ki44-II-Hei Shoki. The majority of the cannon armed planes being armed with the 37mm.

Meanwhile whilst I gather my photo and give you all the details I can, you were going to supply the names of your experts?


----------



## exec228 (Dec 7, 2006)

my mistake: syoki has only 40mm Ho-301, and never 37mm Ho-203.

Return to Faq
Nakajima Ki-44 "Tojo" Pt 2 Threads -40mm approved

damn, jac forum regularly cleansed. that topic was deleted.
however, i found a quote:
alt.games.warbirds - KI-44


Tony Williams said:


> The 37mm wing gun appears to be one of those "perpetuated myths" you describe, the mystery being where on earth it originated from.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 10, 2006)

The Ki 44 IIc retained for home island defence had 4 - 20mm and some had 2 12.7 mm MGs along with a pair of Ho.301 40mms. The Ki 44 IIIa with 4- 20mms flew in June 1943 and a submodel was the IIIb. It did carry a pair of 37mms along with 2 20mms. Some were delivered into servicce.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The Ki 44 IIc retained for home island defence had 4 - 20mm and some had 2 12.7 mm MGs along with a pair of Ho.301 40mms.


source?
you skipped url i gave with discussion about lack of 20mm?


----------



## Twitch (Dec 12, 2006)

The armament references are all stated in these for sure and probably more-

Thorpe, Donald, W.
Japanese Camouflage Markings of WW II
Aero Publishers, Fallbrook, CA 1968

Green, Wm.
The Complete Book of Fighters
Smithmark Publishers, NY, 1994

Green, William
Fighters Vol. 3 
Doubleday Co., 1962 

Francillon, Dr. Rene J.
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War
Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1988

Gunston, Bill
Fighting Aircraft Of WW II
Salamander Books Ltd, London 1988

Sharpe, Michael, Scutts, Jerry March, Dan
Aircraft of WWII
PRC Publishing Ltd, London, 1999


----------



## exec228 (Dec 15, 2006)

imho this error comes from francillon - requoted miscellaneous times.
highly probably sources of sources lead to francillon.

i have a similar myth of 28g of explosive in ShVAK shell. it appeared in Shavrov's book "History of Aviation weapons" and spread wide. actual weight is 2.8g.


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 25, 2006)

Some years ago, when writing Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45 with Emmanuel Gustin, I had a long debate with American and Japanese experts on Japanese aircraft armament, concerning the armament of the Ki-44. More misinformation about this appears to be around than for any other plane. Much of it is down to Francillon, who did a great pioneering job with his book, but several decades of research have taken place since. 

The information supplied to me was based on original Japanese documentation and must be considered the best available evidence, unless and until someone comes up with something absolutely definitive which contradicts it.

First, the 37mm/40mm issue. No Ki-44 ever carried a 37mm gun. In any case, the Ho-203 was a big gun with a huge hoop-shaped "squirrel cage" magazine above it (it never came with anything else). No way could that fit into any fighter wing. See the photo of the Ho-203 in the nose of a twin-engined Ki-45below:







The Ki-44-IIc and Ki-44-III were fitted with two 40mm Ho-301. This was a light and compact weapon with a flat magazine which easily fitted in the wing. However, the muzzle velocity was extremely low and there were only ten rounds in the magazine. To stand any chance of hitting, you had to get so close to the target before firing that it was almost a suicide weapon. Many of the guns were removed and replaced by 12.7mm Ho-103.

No version of the Ki-44 carried any 20mm guns. This has been the hottest debate, but the original Japanese documentation is clear. Photographs are unlikely to prove otherwise, since both the 12.7mm Ho-103 and the 20mm Ho-5 were based on the Browning M2 and looked very similar apart from a marginal difference in size.

Apart from the 40mm versions mentioned, and the early Ki-44-1a which had two 7.7mm Type 89 Fixed and two 12.7mm Ho-103, all models of the Ki-44 were armed with four Ho-103.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## k9kiwi (Dec 25, 2006)

And before everyone gets rabid about height of operations.

Why did they move the B29 operations to lower levels, incendiary attacks etc.

And why was it done?

And who was the rocket signtist behind that plan?

All asked as a non American myself of course.


----------



## exec228 (Dec 25, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Why did they move the B29 operations to lower levels, incendiary attacks etc.


3.6% loss ratio and 10% hit ratio at days.
they (curtiss lemay?) decided to fly at nights to avoid interceptors and to fly low to avoid bomb dispersion and to drop incendiaries due to wooden material of buildings.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 25, 2006)

Exec hit the nail on the head... Improved accuracy....


----------



## Civettone (Oct 4, 2010)

I read through this old topic and am surprised no one mentioned the main Japanese fighter ... the Ki-84 ???


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2010)

What is needed is:
- speed at altitude
- armour
- armament
- sustained climb rate

All Japanese fighters except for the Ki-61 had single-stage radial engines which lost power at high altitude. Japanese fighter aircraft were all slow except for the Ki-84. 

The N1K-1J had strong armament but the Homare engine (also used by the Ki-84) performed badly at high altitude. The J2M had a Kasei engine which was better at altitude. The J2M also had a strong armament and decent armour. Speed for both was below 600 kmh which means it could not catch up with a B-29 but had to intercept head-on and dive from a higher altitude.

Ki-61 was also too slow. The Ki-61-II would have been the best option: inline-engine, decent armour and armament, sufficient speed. The Ki-100 was an excellent dogfighter but for an aircraft whcih entered service in 1945 one could expect a better speed than 590 kmh. Absolutely useless against the B-29.

Kris


----------



## koivis (Oct 10, 2010)

Civettone, are you implying that the B-29 cruised at it top speed with full fuel and bomb load? Ever heard of the term "cruising speed", which for B-29 was ~350 km/h, making it easier to catch for fighters.

Anyway, in my opinion the order would be like this:

J2M5, 3-speed supercharger, decent armament, but only ~50 produced
Ki-84, fastest IJAAF fighter and well armed, but unreliable because of the engine
Ki-45, well armed and probably the most durable IJAAF fighter
J2M3, 2-speed supercharger, well armed and a good climber, ~200 produced
Ki-61-II, good at high altitudes, very few made
Ki-44, best climbing IJAAF fighter, but lacking in armament
Ki-100, overrated but reliable, good dogfighter but not really the best interceptor
N1K1-J, NIK2-J, same as above and unreliable Homare engine
Ki-61-I, only barely adequate, vulnerable V12 engine

Ki-27, Ki-43 and A6M were totally unsuitable against B-29

They had more advanced types flown as prototypes, for example:

Ki-87 Ki-94-II, turbo-equipped interceptors, and a real bomber killer armament (including 30 mm cannons), top speed 700+ km/h
Ki-83, same as above but two engines
Ki-102 (even saw some service but only as a ground attacker), improved Ki-45, some turbo-equipped prototypes
A7M, Zero successor, performance comparable to Hellcat Corsair

If the above types had been in service when the B-29s first appeared, the loss rates would have been higher. But the reality is that IJAAF and IJN, while able to fight against "normal" fighters, ground attack and bomber aircraft, were not prepared equipment-wise for the B-29.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2010)

Good post.

Three things: - fighters need speed surplus to catch the bomber. And closing in with 20 mph is not exactly heartwarming 
- and what did you mean by the vulnerable engine of the Ki-61? And wouldn't this also apply to the Ki-61-II?
- The multi-speed Kasei engines were also very unreliable

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great list Dan - I count 124 claims by the Japanese - that actually is about right because the site I posted has a listing of 19 aircraft shot down by flak *AND* fighters - with the totals of that list being off by 24 I'd say the USAAF stats against the Japanese claims aren't that far off considering the theater and mission being flown.



This is a old thread - but the list Dan presented was for 'confirmed' Japanese Aces - our own experience has aces accounting for pehaps 30% of total claims and awards - which implies that the numbers are seriously inflated re: actual credits to claims... and the credits air to air already exceeded actual losses by 60%.

Second note: I haven't seen the breakout but so many of the post February 1945 missions by the 20th were at night and low altitude - so any Japanese fighter pilot with the balls to jump into a night bombing attack could fly anything in the inventory - so pick a twin with radar as the primary choice for effectiveness..


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2010)

exec228 said:


> 3.6% loss ratio and 10% hit ratio at days.
> they (curtiss lemay?) decided to fly at nights to avoid interceptors and to fly low to avoid bomb dispersion and to drop incendiaries due to wooden material of buildings.



LeMay was in fact the sole 'decider' and he reported directly to the Joint Chiefs - not anyone in the PTO.

Stripped all the guns except tail guns. His thing was a.) the winds aloft and the strain on the engines to climb to altitude and the fuel used to climb were adversely impacting bomb load, aborts and accuracy on target, b.) the airwar in Japan was diametrically opposite ETO - Wooden structures vs concrete and mortar, - lack of effective and co-ordinated night fighter capability as well as far fewer radar directed AAA, c.) the fire departments and containment was not equipped to fight massive distributed fires.

Results? - double the bomb load, far fewer aborts, faster ingress and egress from the targets, much more difficult for fighters to plan and co-ordinate attacks as the B-29s were not in mass formation and flying at varying altitudes from different headings. Oh, and burned out 13 (IIRC) square miles to the ground at center of Tokyo, dwarfing even Dresden.

His wing commanders believed they were all gonna die on the first mission but it was arguably one of the most succcessful attacks by 20th Air Force and set the pace for improved techniques and future successes.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2010)

To add to Bill's post because it seems that some believe that LeMay's decision was not well thought out. I knew a fellow who was a B29 navigator on missions over Japan. He said that when the B29s tried to bomb in daylight from high altitudes, the jet stream at their altitudes was so strong the accuracy of bombs dropped was abysmal. Thus the switch to low altitude, night, area bombing.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 13, 2010)

exec228 said:


> 3.6% loss ratio and 10% hit ratio at days.
> they (curtiss lemay?) decided to fly at nights to avoid interceptors and to fly low to avoid bomb dispersion and to drop incendiaries due to wooden material of buildings.


The daylight loss rate was nothing like 10% on average. The max loss rate was in January 1945, around 5%of total sorties for the Marianas based B-29's (B-29's still operating from China in same period had a lower loss rate v generally easier targets), of which 2.2% were due to fighters (though one by one examination of 'other cause losses' would reclassify some as originating in fighter damage). The total loss rate in March dropped to 1.26%, rose again somewhat as daylight raids resumed, peaking at almost 2% again in May, but then dropped drastically after that as the B-29 force became overwhelmingly large, and Japanese began to hoard their remaining a/c and gas to resist an invasion. In July the total number of sorties was 2.5 times as many as in March and 12 times as many as January, and the total loss rate had declined to 0.3%. This is a factor often neglected, that the B-29 force was continually growing. Also, the operational loss rate dropped as the B-29 became more technically mature, and the ability to make emergency landings at Iwo Jima also cut losses.

Henry Sakaida's "B-29 Killers JAAF" book mentioned earlier in thread clearly describes 24 B-29 loss incidents to fighters, for one mission of China-based a/c over Manchuria, otherwise Marianas based a/c, through Feb '45. Of those, 14 were due to ramming or included ramming, sometimes of a/c which dropped from formation because of gun attacks. Assuming pilots willing to ram, a/c like early series Type 3's (Tony) could get the job done. The 244th Sentai of JAAF had many B-29 kills, and its a/c in that period were mostly early Type 3's, with just 2*12.7mm and 2*7.7mm in the wings, those produced before 20mm wing guns were introduced. Extra weight like armor was stripped out to improve climb.

The issue in switching (temporarily) to all night fire raids in March '45 was perceived ineffectiveness of high altitude precision bombing attacks, mainly v Japanese a/c industry. In fact those raids were more effective than believed, had a much bigger impact on the Japanese a/c industry in a much shorter time than was the case v the German industry. The raids caused the Japaense to start a crash program of dispersal which miscarried and a/c output and quality dropped drastically after early 1945, though it was also affected by blockade (materials shortages) and general disruption caused by the fire raids. In any case it was a major strategic/political decision to do area bombing, not about B-29 losses. Again, many raids after March were again in daylight, some precision, some tactical (many v airifields on Kyushu during Okinawa campaign) also some incendiary bombing in daylight, as well as night raids incendiary raids and then mining, night precision radar (by 'Eagle' radar equipped groups), and of course eventually nuclear raids, a much wider variety of mission profiles by the larger force of spring-summer 1945.

Joe


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> To add to Bill's post because it seems that some believe that LeMay's decision was not well thought out. I knew a fellow who was a B29 navigator on missions over Japan. He said that when the B29s tried to bomb in daylight from high altitudes, the jet stream at their altitudes was so strong the accuracy of bombs dropped was abysmal. Thus the switch to low altitude, night, area bombing.


Remarkable! I thought the jet stream was like a narrow corridor.

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Remarkable! I thought the jet stream was like a narrow corridor.
> 
> Kris



Visualize the 'jet stream' as being muliple shear layers with slightly different to diverse velocities and directions - with winds aloft of up to 200+ mph.

Allegedly the jet stream complexity over Japan was the very worst.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

it starts at what alt?


Kris


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 13, 2010)

I had read the main reason why they bombed at that altitude was it being an awkward height for the Japanese AAA, either too low for the long range guns and a little too high for the short range ones.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2010)

Civettone said:


> it starts at what alt?
> 
> 
> Kris



Typically at 20-30K but there was no fixed bandwidth.. like currents in the ocean, multiple layers fueled by rapidly changing pressures associated with moving frontal weather systems.. Pacific well noted for the monsters, although 'jet streams' exist everywhere..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2010)

thank you !


Kris


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Sep 13, 2019)

I’m looking for the source, but, I remember reading an interview with a Russian MiG-15 pilot stating that the gunners on B-29s were quite good and a definite danger for intercepting Migs..



FLYBOYJ said:


> 16 Superfortresses were lost to Mig-15s during the Korean War. Their loss rate was 1 per 1000 sorties...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Sep 13, 2019)

Thanks! 



syscom3 said:


> For the newbies, I have a thread called "All Things B29"
> 
> B-29 Engineering Flight book
> 
> Lots of interesting info there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2019)

Washing Machine Charlie said:


> I’m looking for the source, but, I remember reading an interview with a Russian MiG-15 pilot stating that the gunners on B-29s were quite good and a definite danger for intercepting Migs..


_"According to Far East Air Force Bomber Command records, Superfort crewmen were credited with shooting down 33 enemy fighters, 16 of them MiGs. Another 17 MiGs were listed as probably destroyed, with 11 damaged."_

_https://www.historynet.com/superforts-vs-migs.htm _

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 14, 2019)

Hunter368 said:


> Damn and only 80-100 were brought down by fighters in over 10,000 sorties. That sucks if you are Japanese.



Hey, but the end of the war, flying an Il-2 on the Eastern Front, you were likely to survive 93 sorties as opposed to 7 or 8 in the first few months of the war.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 14, 2019)

Well for what its worth (since you all reopened the thread), Wikipedia lists
the Ki.61-II as having shot down the majority (a greater number than any
other fighter) of B-29s. .., but the Ki.61-II, when compared to other late
war Japanese fighters, does have one of the best high altitude performances.
Its speed and climbing ability easily exceeded the Ki.100 at very high
altitudes. 
We are talking a bomber interceptor, not a 1-on-1 fighter vs. fighter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Well for what its worth (since you all reopened the thread), Wikipedia lists
> the Ki.61-II as having shot down the majority (a greater number than any
> other fighter) of B-29s. .., but the Ki.61-II, when compared to other late
> war Japanese fighters, does have one of the best high altitude performances.
> ...



1st step in intercepting high flying bomber.................reach the same altitude as the bomber if not higher.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 15, 2019)

The biggest problem with the Japanese was their technology, or lack thereof. Both the British and German forces in particular had well organised air defence systems from ground observers to low medium and high radar coverage with light medium and heavy AAA to match, not to mention aircraft far ahead of anything the Japanese air forces could field. The fact LeMay stripped the B29's of guns and had them fly at low altitudes speaks volumes of the quality of the japanese home defences.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> 1st step in intercepting high flying bomber.................reach the same altitude as the bomber if not higher.



TAIC A/C @ 9,000 m. (29,527 ft.) using 92 octane:
Aircraft: Speed / Climb rate / Combat ceiling (1,000 fpm)/ Armament
Ki.61-II: 417 mph/2280 fpm/37,400 ft./2 x 12.7 mm/200 rpg. + 2 x 20 mm/150 rpg.
Ki.84-1a: 403 mph/1720 fpm/33,755 ft./2 x 12.7 mm/350 rpg. +2 x 20 mm/150 rpg.
N1K2-J: 375 mph/1445 fpm/32,480 ft./ 4 x 20 mm/220 rpg.
J2M3m21: 383 mph/1850 fpm/33,800 ft./4 X 20 mm/200 rpg.
Ki.44-II: 345 mph/1190 fpm/30,715 ft./2 x 12,7 mm/250 rpg/2 x 40 mm.
Ki.45-KAIc: 322 mph/1005 fpm/29,580 ft./1 x 37 mm/16 rds.+2 x 20 mm/1 x 7.92/1000 rds.

There were two major problems with these figures, that I know of. The first was these
figures being reach required good workmanship in manufacturing. The second hurdle
was that 92 octane fuel was required. By the time the B-29 raids began, there
was problems with both. Unskilled labor and tree sap 85 octane fuel.
There was other major problems but they did not have to do with these aircraft reaching
these figures. There just wasn't enough of them and no good early warning system.

I do not have a TAIC report on the Ki.100 but it is safe to say that at altitudes of 30,000 ft.
only military ratings would be used. with that in mind the following figures would be
close.
Ki.100-I: 337 mph/~800 fpm/~28,000 ft./2 x 12.7 mm/250 rpg + 2 x 20 mm/250 rpg.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 15, 2019)

Hello Corsning,

I believe the TAIC data for Ki-61-II is VERY suspect.
The actual critical altitude for Ha-140 engine was only 5700 meters and although the interceptors probably had the typical removal of armour plating and other excess weight, I just don't see it making 1000 feet / minute up to 37,000 feet or hitting 417 MPH in level flight under ANY conditions.

One of the biggest problems with intercepting B-29 is simply lack of suitable aircraft because manufacturing numbers were so small and aircraft with the Homare engine seldom gave their design performance.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2019)

Hi Ivan,
Yes the TAIC performance for the Ki.61-II is suspect, but to the best
of my knowledge it is the best encompassing knowledge out there 
on this aircraft. If it helps any, the Tony was one of Japans cleanest
(low drag) designed fighters.
, Jeff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 15, 2019)

Hello Corsning,

I actually agree with you about Ki-61 in general. My own belief is that it was a borderline 400 MPH aircraft or at least very close if flown to its limits.

The problem with the Ki-61-II as an interceptor is that there were just too few of them and of course the known unreliable engine.

If the B-29 had continued the high altitude bombing, even the Ki-61-I would have had a lot of issues.
The only Ki-61-I that were armed with 20 mm cannon in any numbers were the -Id which was much heavier than the rest and 400 of the -Ib and -Ic which had MG 151/20. I believe there were a few more armed with 30 mm guns, but very very few.

That was the point I was getting at earlier: The total production run of anything that had a fair chance against B-29s was several hundred at best.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 15, 2019)

Yes Ivan, you are correct. That is exactly what I meant in post 70 when
I said, " *There just wasn't enough of them *and no good early warning
system. "
Cheers, Jeff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 15, 2019)

The US Air Force conducted mock interception tests against the B29 at high altitude (above 30,000 feet) and found out even the P38 and P47 had great difficulty in intercepting the B29. Evidently both the P38 and P47 would go into a high speed stall when attempting to turn at high speed when aiming. If the P38 and P47 had great difficulty at that altitude, what chance did any Japanese fighter have?

As far as the Luftwaffe Me262 above 30,000 feet: I know it was fast and had 4 30 mm cannon, but didn’t it have engine problems at high altitude? I thought the Me262 engines were best at middle altitudes and high altitudes caused flameouts or something

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 16, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The US Air Force conducted mock interception tests against the B29 at high altitude (above 30,000 feet) and found out even the P38 and P47 had great difficulty in intercepting the B29. Evidently both the P38 and P47 would go into a high speed stall when attempting to turn at high speed when aiming. If the P38 and P47 had great difficulty at that altitude, what chance did any Japanese fighter have?



Hello Pinsog,

Sounds to me like this is a different kind of issue. The "high speed" stalls are because the air is a lot less dense and stall speed increases because the wings need to go faster to generate the same lift.
If you have a Japanese fighter with a very light wing loading and low stall speed, its stall speed at high altitude also increases proportionally, but the absolute number isn't quite so high.
As an example:
The stall speed (clean) of a P-47D-25 is 115 MPH according to the manual.
At 30,000 feet, that works out to 188 MPH TAS just flying straight and level.
For a 2 G maneuver, minimum speed becomes 265 MPH.
For a 3 G maneuver, minimum speed becomes 326 MPH.

The Oscar we were discussing elsewhere has a stall speed barely over half that of the Thunderbolt, so its stall speeds at altitude would also be barely over half that of Thunderbolt. The only problem is that it may not have the engine power to get that high and maintain enough speed for an intercept.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Sep 16, 2019)

Also, to the B-29 crew’s credit, let’s not forget that a lot of the time, they didn’t have the benefit of large formations, especially flying from Saipan, which could only launch one plane at a time, at a minute or so between..

Little known fact, the B-29 was built with special seats to accommodate the huge brass nuts each crewmen possessed. 



PAT303 said:


> The biggest problem with the Japanese was their technology, or lack thereof. Both the British and German forces in particular had well organised air defence systems from ground observers to low medium and high radar coverage with light medium and heavy AAA to match, not to mention aircraft far ahead of anything the Japanese air forces could field. The fact LeMay stripped the B29's of guns and had them fly at low altitudes speaks volumes of the quality of the japanese home defences.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 18, 2019)

There is also the story of a B29 whose crew bailed out, I believe over Iwo Jima, leaving the B29 on autopilot at low altitude. A P61 Blackwidow was ordered to destroy the B29 as it was considered a hazard I believe to ships in the area. The P61 crew used their entire load of 50 caliber and 20mm cannon to bring down an undefended B29, at low altitude, on autopilot. Imagine trying to fight a B29 above 30,000 feet, 1 on 1, bombs have been dropped, running full power with a crew that is shooting back at you and trying to kill you. No thanks, I’ll pass!


----------



## pinsog (Sep 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pinsog,
> 
> Sounds to me like this is a different kind of issue. The "high speed" stalls are because the air is a lot less dense and stall speed increases because the wings need to go faster to generate the same lift.
> If you have a Japanese fighter with a very light wing loading and low stall speed, its stall speed at high altitude also increases proportionally, but the absolute number isn't quite so high.
> ...


Good points, but a thing or 2 to consider: 

The P47 could supposedly out turn a 109 at high altitude due to, as I understand it, a larger wing and more power. 

Anything that is going to have the speed and firepower required to bring down a B29 above 30,000 feet is going to have a much higher wing loading than a Zero or KI43.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Good points, but a thing or 2 to consider:
> 
> The P47 could supposedly out turn a 109 at high altitude due to, as I understand it, a larger wing and more power.
> 
> Anything that is going to have the speed and firepower required to bring down a B29 above 30,000 feet is going to have a much higher wing loading than a Zero or KI43.



Hello Pinsog,

It kinda depends on what you really mean by "high altitude". Just remember, the Me 109 also had a pretty small wing and wasn't a particularly light aircraft in the versions that were likely to encounter a P-47.

It really isn't a matter of just wing loading though that is a good indication of relative stall speeds. It is a matter of stall speed clean and I don't think you will find a single engine Japanese fighter with a stall speed as high as 115 MPH. I was just using Oscar as an example because I had already calculated its stall speed as somewhere below about 68 MPH from earlier discussions.

- Ivan.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Pinsog,
> 
> It kinda depends on what you really mean by "high altitude". Just remember, the Me 109 also had a pretty small wing and wasn't a particularly light aircraft in the versions that were likely to encounter a P-47.
> 
> ...


Over 30,000 feet


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Over 30,000 feet



How many encounters do you have data for at that altitude that involved a turning fight?
30,000 feet also happens to be about the optimum altitude for a Thunderbolt.
I don't believe the 109G and later had a particularly low stall speed either.

- Ivan.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 19, 2019)

So a bit of topic but what piston engined fighter would be good for shooting down B29's at 30,000ft, Spitfire 14 with 4 hispano's, Ta152 with 20 or 30mm cannon, late mark P47 with hispano's or say a mozzie with Merlin 70's and 8 hispano's in the nose or a 40mm bofors in the bomb bay with an auto loader?.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> So a bit of topic but what piston engined fighter would be good for shooting down B29's at 30,000ft, Spitfire 14 with 4 hispano's, Ta152 with 20 or 30mm cannon, late mark P47 with hispano's or say a mozzie with Merlin 70's and 8 hispano's in the nose or a 40mm bofors in the bomb bay with an auto loader?.



Westland Welkin. Intercept of high altitude pressurised bombers or recce aircraft is what it was designed for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 19, 2019)

Kevin,
The Welkin is a very good choice. I personally believe the Spitfire XIV
with 4 x 20 mm armament would have been an excellent choice. My
personal favorites were a close call. The P-72A with 4 x 20 mm. and
De Havilland Hornet I.

Welkin I: 387 mph/26,000 ft.
Spitfire 14: 437 mph/32,808 ft.
P-72: 490 mph/25,000 ft.
Hornet I: 460 mph./32,808 ft.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Westland Welkin. Intercept of high altitude pressurised bombers or recce aircraft is what it was designed for.



Hello Kevin J,

There were reasons why the Welkin was never produced. The problem was that the aircraft had a serious compressibility issue and compressibility problems and high-altitude aircraft just do not work well together. That is my understanding for why the design failed. 
I believe I heard this in a recorded interview with Philip Lucas.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 19, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Kevin J,
> 
> There were reasons why the Welkin was never produced. The problem was that the aircraft had a serious compressibility issue and compressibility problems and high-altitude aircraft just do not work well together. That is my understanding for why the design failed.
> I believe I heard this in a recorded interview with Philip Lucas.
> ...



So long as there is no escort fighters the Welkins deficiencies are irrelevant.


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 19, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Kevin,
> The Welkin is a very good choice. I personally believe the Spitfire XIV
> with 4 x 20 mm armament would have been and excellent choice. My
> personal favorites were a close call. The P-72A with 4 x 20 mm. and
> ...



Only the Welkin is pressurised. Neither the P-72 or Hornet are operational.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Sep 19, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Kevin,
> The Welkin is a very good choice. I personally believe the Spitfire XIV
> with 4 x 20 mm armament would have been and excellent choice. My
> personal favorites were a close call. The P-72A with 4 x 20 mm. and
> ...


The P72 was supposedly going to be armed with either 6x20 mm or 4x37 mm cannon.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 19, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> How many encounters do you have data for at that altitude that involved a turning fight?
> 30,000 feet also happens to be about the optimum altitude for a Thunderbolt.
> I don't believe the 109G and later had a particularly low stall speed either.
> 
> - Ivan.


My mistake. I read your original question wrong, I thought you were asking what was high altitude for a B29 intercept.

High altitude for the P47 to start out turning an Me109 was, I think, 28,000 feet. (Could be as low as 26,000 or 27,000 feet) but I’m 95% sure it was 28,000. I just read that, couldn’t tell you where. But especially with the paddle prop, no loss in power and large wing it certainly doesn’t surprise me.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Only the Welkin is pressurised. Neither the P-72 or Hornet are operational.



P-80? Two were operational by the end of the war.

I know, too much, too late. But not enough of them.


I was always curious why they weren't thinking 4 x 20 mm.
Even the F-86 was still using 0.5in. Brownings.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So long as there is no escort fighters the Welkins deficiencies are irrelevant.



Hello Kevin J,

"The Welkin was seriously handicapped by compressibility problems caused by its long, high aspect-ratio wing which needed to be thick at the root (thickness-to-chord ratio of about 19%) for strength reasons.[5] Compressibility caused the flight envelope (flyable speed range) between high-incidence stall and shock-stall to become very small at high altitudes – any decrease in airspeed causing a "normal" stall, any increase causing a shock-stall due to the aircraft's limiting critical Mach number. This reduction of the speed envelope is a problem common to all subsonic, high altitude designs and also occurred with the later Lockheed U-2. When W.E.W. Petter came to design his next high-altitude aircraft, the English Electric Canberra jet bomber, the required wing area was distinguished by noticeably short wings, with thickness-to-chord ratio (t/c) at the root of 12%,[6] a t/c ratio which delays compressibility effects to an aircraft speed of about Mach 0.85.[7]"

This is lifted from Wikipedia, but is consistent with what I understand to be the problem. It ISN'T a matter of dogfighting but just a matter of just staying in the air at high altitude.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> My mistake. I read your original question wrong, I thought you were asking what was high altitude for a B29 intercept.
> 
> High altitude for the P47 to start out turning an Me109 was, I think, 28,000 feet. (Could be as low as 26,000 or 27,000 feet) but I’m 95% sure it was 28,000. I just read that, couldn’t tell you where. But especially with the paddle prop, no loss in power and large wing it certainly doesn’t surprise me.



Hello Pinsog,

I can see this match up going either way. It kind of depends on what version of Thunderbolt and what version of Me 109 is involved.
The wing on the Thunderbolt was a very interesting design but just remember that the aircraft was so heavy that its stall speed was still very high. Regardless of which "paddle blade" propeller was fitted, the engine power and aircraft weight could vary quite a lot between different versions. With the 109, you could be encountering a G-6/R-6 cannon boat or a K-4 and the results are going to be pretty different as well.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

How about a Me 109K-6 equipped with GM1?

If that doesn't work, let's see if we can summon the R-3350 Gremlin to start an engine fire!

- Ivan.


----------



## Macandy (Sep 19, 2019)

The biggest danger to a B-29 was its engines and take off.
If yiu got off the deck in one piece, and an engine didn’t catch fire, your chance of being lost in action to direct enemy action was very minimal.
Once Mustangs started escorting them, even that risk dropped away to almost nothing.


----------



## Macandy (Sep 19, 2019)

Silverplate B-29’s we’re flying 5,000 ft higher and 50kts faster, rendering them effectively invulnerable to interception. 
Fairly easy job to switch all B-29’s to that spec if Japanese fighters had managed to become troublesome.
The B-29 was a very tough target for piston engined fighters.


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 19, 2019)

Japan's most effective defense against high altitude raids by the B-29 was the jet stream. These high altitude winds can reach speeds of 250 MPH. The B-29s flying from the Marianas to Japan had to fly against these winds, and they caused the ground-speed of the bomber to be reduced by the velocity of the wind. My physics teacher in high school was a B-29 pilot in WWII, and the only time he would talk about his wartime service was his frequent lecture about the jet stream. It must have traumatized the crews to have an air speed of 300 miles an hour and a ground speed of 90. 

The jet stream also played havoc with bombing accuracy, being a big cause of the switch to low-level night bombing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Sep 19, 2019)

We've known forever and a day that Japanese aerial victory claims are absurd, not that other nations (occasionally including us) don't get way off track. Thing is, tho: even allowing for rare intercepts over water, the Japanese could count wrecks if they wanted to, same as the Vietnamese who claimed 100+ shootdowns over/around Thanh Hoa Bridge when the verified total is 14. Off Formosa, Oct 44, the IJN claimed sinking something like 11 carriers and 2 battleships etc--and those industrious Yanks replaced them in a week or so at Leyte Gulf. Sometimes military claims, especially for the losing side, are whistling past the proverbial graveyard.

Sidebar: in researching _Whirlwind_ I found one or two documents stating that P-51s were not much needed to escort 29s but of course that realization came late. VIII FC flew more strike sorties than escort. Just FWIW.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> I was always curious why they weren't thinking 4 x 20 mm.
> Even the F-86 was still using 0.5in. Brownings.



The F-86 used M3 Brownings not M-2s. The M3 fired at a 50% higher rate than the M2 so six of them were about equal to 9 M2s of WW II. 

The T25E3 ( early version of the M3) had gone into small scale production in late 44? So a hypothetical P-47 bomber interceptor could have carried eight of them in mid to late 1945. 

The F-86 also used different ammo, the M23 incendiary round which not only carried a lot more Incendiary compound per bullet than WW II ammo but since the bullet was lighter it had hundreds of feet per second more muzzle velocity making defection shooting easier. This round was combat trialed in WW II with not very good results but development continued all during the late 40s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Sep 20, 2019)

k9kiwi said:


> And before everyone gets rabid about height of operations.
> 
> Why did they move the B29 operations to lower levels, incendiary attacks etc.
> 
> ...





Exactly the same reasons RAF Bomber Command did - daytime raids were doing too little damage and the losses were too high, and there wasn't the time to train the crews in greater accuracy. Result - night time area bombing. Which in the campaign against Japan was devastating.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Sep 20, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> Japan's most effective defense against high altitude raids by the B-29 was the jet stream. These high altitude winds can reach speeds of 250 MPH. The B-29s flying from the Marianas to Japan had to fly against these winds, and they caused the ground-speed of the bomber to be reduced by the velocity of the wind. My physics teacher in high school was a B-29 pilot in WWII, and the only time he would talk about his wartime service was his frequent lecture about the jet stream. It must have traumatized the crews to have an air speed of 300 miles an hour and a ground speed of 90.
> 
> The jet stream also played havoc with bombing accuracy, being a big cause of the switch to low-level night bombing.



This is the key to the B 29s career in World War II. The bomber was the most expensive weapon system of the entire war and during the conflict was rarely ever successfully used as designed. It was a uickly discovered that mysterious jet-stream prevented, not only accurate bombing, but any kind of successful bombing above 25,000 feet. This negated the whole purpose of the 29s existence. It’s ability to fly high above the opposition was its technological edge and reason for existence.

General Curtis LeMay realized a couple things after the first unsuccessful raids at high altitude. Number one was there was no opposition at any altitude. The Japanese opposition in the air was nonexistent due to lack of fuel and trained pilots. Number two this meant that he could carry-on virtual mass murder on the helpless population below, which he promptly did.

He stripped the bombers of all of their defensive weaponry except for the rear guns. Then proceeded to stuff them full of incendiaries and napalm. He then proceeded to burn to death hundreds of thousands of civilians per raid by flying in at low level and dropping these heinous weapons on the helpless populations below. Almost all the raids conducted by the B 29 we’re done in this manner thus negating all of the bombers technological advances which had cost billions in today’s dollars, tto design, test, and produce. All in all the whole B 29 program was a colossal waste of resources, for it rarely flew during World War II using the abilities that were so expensively developed.

It’s ability to fly high and fast using it’s pressurized interior was rarely used and for the missions over Japan and all in all a colossal waste of money. The same holds true for all of its defense armament. As stated earlier, all of the guns except for the tail guns were discarded and the crew members who should’ve been manning them did not fly the mission. They were replaced by more weapons designed in hell. Weapons that caused fire storms which literally sucked the life out of all living creatures below and causing agonizing deaths for thousands of human beings.

General La May’s version of hell, was so efficient at dealing death and destruction, that many of the fire bombing raids exceeded the atomic bomb in extinguishing human life and causing agonizing pain.

The B 29 was clearly not used as intended, and could easily have been replaced by B-17s and the B-24s for the extermination of Japanese civilians.

On a side note, there is no logical reason why napalm was not banned along with chemical weapons and dumb dumb bullets. It is a heinous weapon only exceeded by the atomic bomb itself.


----------



## Hairog (Sep 20, 2019)

Conslaw said:


> Japan's most effective defense against high altitude raids by the B-29 was the jet stream. These high altitude winds can reach speeds of 250 MPH. The B-29s flying from the Marianas to Japan had to fly against these winds, and they caused the ground-speed of the bomber to be reduced by the velocity of the wind. My physics teacher in high school was a B-29 pilot in WWII, and the only time he would talk about his wartime service was his frequent lecture about the jet stream. It must have traumatized the crews to have an air speed of 300 miles an hour and a ground speed of 90.
> 
> The jet stream also played havoc with bombing accuracy, being a big cause of the switch to low-level night bombing.



This is the key to the B 29s career in World War II. The bomber was the most expensive weapon system of the entire war and during the conflict was rarely ever successfully used as designed. It was a uickly discovered that mysterious jet-stream prevented, not only accurate bombing, but any kind of successful bombing above 25,000 feet. This negated the whole purpose of the 29s existence. It’s ability to fly high above the opposition was its technological edge and reason for existence. 

General Curtis LeMay realized a couple things after the first unsuccessful raids at high altitude. Number one was there was no opposition at any altitude. The Japanese opposition in the air was nonexistent due to lack of fuel and trained pilots. Number two this meant that he could carry-on virtual mass murder on the helpless population below, which he promptly did. 

He stripped the bombers of all of their defensive weaponry except for the rear guns. Then proceeded to stuff them full of incendiaries and napalm. He then proceeded to burn to death hundreds of thousands of civilians per raid by flying in at low level and dropping these heinous weapons on the helpless populations below. Almost all the raids conducted by the B 29 we’re done in this manner thus negating all of the bombers technological advances which had cost billions in today’s dollars, tto design, test, and produce. All in all the whole B 29 program was a colossal waste of resources, for it rarely flew during World War II using the abilities that were so expensively developed. 

It’s ability to fly high and fast using it’s pressurized interior was rarely used and for the missions over Japan and all in all a colossal waste of money. The same holds true for all of its defense armament. As stated earlier, all of the guns except for the tail guns were discarded and the crew members who should’ve been manning them did not fly the mission. They were replaced by more weapons designed in hell. Weapons that caused fire storms which literally sucked the life out of all living creatures below and causing agonizing deaths for thousands of human beings.

General La May’s version of hell, was so efficient at dealing death and destruction, that many of the fire bombing raids exceeded the atomic bomb in extinguishing human life and causing agonizing pain. 

The B 29 was clearly not used as intended, and could easily have been replaced by B-17s and the B-24s for the extermination of Japanese civilians.

On a side note, there is no logical reason why napalm was not banned along with chemical weapons and dumb dumb bullets. It is a heinous weapon only exceeded by the atomic bomb itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Sep 20, 2019)

> This is the key to the B 29s career in World War II. The bomber was the most expensive weapon system of the entire war an



I read on Wiki (LOL) that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project for the A-Bomb.

The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $42 billion today[5])—far exceeding the $1.9 billion cost of the Manhattan Project—


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 20, 2019)

Hairog said:


> The B 29 was clearly not used as intended, and could easily have been replaced by B-17s and the B-24s for the extermination of Japanese civilians.



The B-17 and B-24 could not have replaced the B-29 on a one for one basis or even a 2 for one basis on those firebombing missions. They had neither the range or the load carrying ability plus many of the bases they operated from were restricted in size/area. You could only put so many planes on some of the island bases before you were out of room. You alos had to supply the ground crew as some of those island bases could not even supply fresh water let alone food for thousands of ground crew. 




Hairog said:


> On a side note, there is no logical reason why napalm was not banned along with chemical weapons and* dumb dumb bullets.*



The term is Dumdum after the British arsenal near Calcutta India where they were first made in the1890s. There is a perfectly logical reason why napalm was not banned along with Dumdum bullets. Dumdums were banned in a treaty signed in 1899 which is well before napalm was invented or came into use (1942). 
The banning of such bullets was a bit hypocritical as by the time of the 1899 treaty and the later 1907 or 1908 treaty machine guns were coming into more widespread use and they tended to jam using using such bullets. The original Dumdum was also open (lead exposed) at the back in addition to the front and had a tendency to blow the lead core out of jacket leaving the jacket stuck in the rifle bore to obstruct the next buller leading to a bulged barrel at best and burst barrel at worst. 
The British by 1912 had designed a new spitzer bullet with a lead core in the rear and light weight filler in the front that fed well in automatic weapons, had superior ballistics (flatter trajectory than the older bullets) and unlike the older bullets was unstable enough to flip end for end when it hit something meaning it created a much bigger wound path than the old Dumdum or any variation of it. 
Many nations developed more effective weapons and ammunition while paying lip service to those pre WW I treaties for propaganda reasons. 
You can't shoot somebody with a dumdum or expanding bullet but it is humane or morally superior to shoot the same soldier multiple times with a machine gun? 

Any treaties or agreements that banned chemical weapons after WW I usually just copied the language of the Prewar treaties when it came to small arms bullets. 
At least one of those treaties banned the dropping of any sort of exploding or incendiary device from the air. We know how well that one was followed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The term is Dumdum after the British arsenal near Calcutta India where they were first made in the1890s. There is a perfectly logical reason why napalm was not banned along with Dumdum bullets. Dumdums were banned in a treaty signed in 1899 which is well before napalm was invented or came into use (1942).



Hello Shortround6 et al.

This sounds like the Hague Convention of 1899.
"The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets “only creates obligations for Parties to the Declaration in international armed conflicts in which all the parties to the conflict are also Parties to the Declaration” (the United States is not Party to the Declaration)."

There was a ruling by the Army JAG that ballistic hollow point bullets were also acceptable for use in international warfare because although ammunition with such hollow point bullets (Such as M852 and M118LR) do not cause wounds different from FMJ bullets.

- Ivan.


----------



## Barrett (Sep 27, 2019)

Jank said:


> Which fighters were used more often for B-29 escorts, the P-51D or the P-47N?


Mustangs definitely. The Jugs did not arrive until June-July IIRC.


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 27, 2019)

Barrett said:


> Mustangs definitely. The Jugs did not arrive until June-July IIRC.



Iwo Jima was taken to be a fighter base for escort fighters and an emergency base for B-29s. It proved to be more crucial for the latter than the former. The P-51s based on Iwo Jima had a hard time providing effective escort to the B-29s. The distances were longer than the usual distances in Europe, and it was difficult to time the arrival of the escorts with the arrival of the B-29s. When you add to this that the Japanese rarely intercepted the B-29s with large formations of fighters, and the fact that LeMay had largely given up daylight high-altitude raids by the time Iwo Jima was taken.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> blah blah


Japan also like to play the victim.

But please do not come onto the forum with your Japanese propoganda. Have you heard about operation Ichi-Go? No? Well allow me to retort.

Tell me how many Chinese civilians were killed by your defenceless Japanese in that operation in 1944? How many Chinese civilians were killed after the Doolittle riads?

How many defenceless Chinese civilians were killed at Nanking?

You mourn for the Japanese civilians who will killed in the bombings well good for you.

Keep your propoganda to yourself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hairog said:


> This is the key to the B 29s career in World War II. The bomber was the most expensive weapon system of the entire war and during the conflict was rarely ever successfully used as designed. It was a uickly discovered that mysterious jet-stream prevented, not only accurate bombing, but any kind of successful bombing above 25,000 feet. This negated the whole purpose of the 29s existence. It’s ability to fly high above the opposition was its technological edge and reason for existence.
> 
> General Curtis LeMay realized a couple things after the first unsuccessful raids at high altitude. Number one was there was no opposition at any altitude. The Japanese opposition in the air was nonexistent due to lack of fuel and trained pilots. Number two this meant that he could carry-on virtual mass murder on the helpless population below, which he promptly did.
> 
> ...



Hairog,

You are using some serious retrospectroscope here with a big dose of twist.

First, the B29 design was started in the late 30s IIRC. Aviation made a TREMENDOUS leap by the time it started flights over Japan. The jet stream was basically an unknown until it arrived on the scene, so it’s hard to design against an unknown condition/ problem. So high altitude, long range flight was a design goal and high altitude wasn’t used to the level it was designed for. However, it was designed as a weapon and used as such.

A commanders goal is to use his resources to the best of his ability, or as Patton is so famously quoted for saying, “Its not that I ask you to die for your country but to make him die for his”. Tough words from a very experienced combat commanders perspective. The P47 gained fame for its legendary toughness, mostly earned while doing ground attack. The P38 was designed as an interceptor but really came into its own in med to low altitude long range work in SWP. The list of aircraft designed for one thing and used for another is long and distinguished.

Japan did some horrendous things to the Chinese, to the men and women they captured, and to everyone they fought. So did the Germans, so did the Russians and the British and the US (all to massively different degrees). No one was perfect by TODAYS standard. By yesterday’s standard the above group was spread across a wide spectrum of good to bad. Example is Nazi Germany is looked at as one of the worst. Reality has shown Russia killed many more folks than the Nazis but who gets painted the most with the hate brush?

Yes we bombed the Japanese into oblivion. Why? To get them to surrender prior to an invasion. Why? Expected friendly casualties of over 1 million. Remember we had been in a world war for several years, and had lost many of our soldiers. The line had to be drawn somewhere and the leadership at that time drew it. Nice try blaming one man, and a military guy at that. Remember in this country the military answers to the civilian leadership and not the other way round.

Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 28, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Example is Nazi Germany is looked at as one of the worst. Reality has shown Russia killed many more folks than the Nazis but who gets painted the most with the hate brush?



Those who win the war get to do whatever painting they like.....


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Those who win the war get to do whatever painting they like.....



True, and one hopes it will be truthful.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 28, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> True, and one hopes it will be truthful.



It IS "Truthful" by definition because they get to write the historical record and the other side won't be around to object.


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 28, 2019)

If I may introduce an aspect of the historical background,

On November 7, 1944, the 10th Air Division of IJA ordered its flight squadrons (totally 12) to form a group with 4 fighters each to intercept the B-29s using Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-45, Ki-61 and Ki-100. Rules were -

1. Do not use the brand-new or intact airframes.
2. Remove all guns, cannons, armours and radio equipment to lighten the weight.
3. Fly them with pilots who are not only skillful for the high altitude flight but do not afraid of ramming B-29s.

Pilots were ordered to return alive to repeat this attack.
These groups were named the Shinten Air-defense Unit.
Attack by ramming was carried out until the P-51s appeared in the homeland from Iwo-jima in April, 1945.

IJN's 302-ku was also established on March 1, 1944.
This unit relied on the cannons to attack basically.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 29, 2019)

No explanation if this is Shinten unit but an army pilot of a Ki-45 explains how he shot and his friend rammed a B-29 to down above Chiba City near Tokyo. He says his first shot at 200 meters distance on the No.2 engine of a B-29 caused explosion but the target kept flying, so his friend Sgt. Yoshimura rammed the root of left wing to down. Yoshimura's fate is unknown in this video.

Scene from 6:33
Nippon News No.236 (dated December, 1944)


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 29, 2019)

A former squadron leader of the 53rd sentai of Shinten unit, Tetsuro Aoki says "We had no choice but attacking the B-29 from the front, whichever upper or lower, becaue the B-29 was much faster than our planes."

Kenji Suzuki (NHK)






Former 2nd Lt. Tetsuro Aoki







Source: NHK documentary video "Shinten Air-defense Unit" in 1981.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1w7Gu_6XIE

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 29, 2019)

Ramming is not the best as good chance lose aircraft and aircrew and maybe bring down B-29 but 1v1 loss is hardly beneficial in an attrition war the Japanese were losing.

Was ramming an official tactic? 

My solution would be Schräge Musik. Get a cannon firing directly upwards and so the altitude advantage can be negated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 29, 2019)

Yes, ramming was official tactics for the army.


----------



## taly01 (Sep 30, 2019)

> Ramming is not the best as good chance lose aircraft and aircrew and maybe bring down B-29 but 1v1 loss is hardly beneficial in an attrition war the Japanese were losing



But a single engine fighter for a 4 engine bomber is a very good trade off, also its 1 vs 10 in crew men also, especially as B-29 (54,000kg) is 13 times the production resources of heaviest Japanese fighter (4,000kg).
This was also Luftwaffe Fighter Commander Galland's plan for his "Big Blow" against USAAF bombers in Europe in late 44, instead Hitler held him back then wasted Galland's fighter build up with the ridiculous "Operation Bodenplatte".



> My solution would be Schräge Musik. Get a cannon firing directly upwards and so the altitude advantage can be negated.



If you can get close enough to ram your close enough to shoot, my solution would be 1-2 30mm on all Japanese interceptors. Maybe copies of the MK108 30mm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 30, 2019)

If ramming is the best option then war probably is not for you.
The technological and quantitative advantage of the USA is not going to be challenged in this way.
Plus you're losing a pilot and an aircraft which are resources which are not going to be replaced.


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 30, 2019)

The Basket said:


> If ramming is the best option then war probably is not for you.
> The technological and quantitative advantage of the USA is not going to be challenged in this way.
> Plus you're losing a pilot and an aircraft which are resources which are not going to be replaced.



If the Japanese could truly trade one fighter and pilot for a B-29 and crew, in the cold calculus of war, it would be worth it. BUT, they would rarely get that opportunity.


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Oct 1, 2019)

While driving home, eating my Taco Bell, and thinking airplanes, the though occurred to me, did any changes to perhaps cams(?) or any other part of the mechanical computer controlling the B-29 guns need to be made, once, MiG-15s became targets?

It seems such a radical performance difference, from Japanese interceptors would challenge the system...



FLYBOYJ said:


> _"According to Far East Air Force Bomber Command records, Superfort crewmen were credited with shooting down 33 enemy fighters, 16 of them MiGs. Another 17 MiGs were listed as probably destroyed, with 11 damaged."_
> 
> _https://www.historynet.com/superforts-vs-migs.htm _


----------



## The Basket (Oct 1, 2019)

The Ki-46 was said to have a upwards firing cannon 37mm so that's the ticket.
In a war of attrition, trading 1v1 maybe better than nothing but ramming is desperate when you've ran out of ideas.

Its not a common practice when you're winning.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 1, 2019)

Ramming “may” be a viable tactic if you can out produce your adversary (both pilots and planes). Just not the case in the war against Japan.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 1, 2019)

2,000sets of Type5 30mm cannon were provided in the navy but so many airframes were not in time by the end of war.






Source: Photos & Videos tagged with #30mm機銃搭載した彩雲 on Instagram - Pintaram

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 1, 2019)

That looks like Nakajima B6N 'Jill' but don't think it is 🤔
So much confusion.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 1, 2019)

The Basket said:


> That looks like Nakajima B6N 'Jill' but don't think it is 🤔
> So much confusion.



It is definitely a Nakajima B6N Heavenly Mountain (Jill).


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 1, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Reality has shown Russia killed many more folks than the Nazis but who gets painted the most with the hate brush?



Not "Russia" but the Soviet Union (USSR). Sorry, just stating the obvious...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Oct 1, 2019)

It is Nakajima C6N Myrt, more exactly C6N1-S

Juha3
ex-Juha
ex-Juha2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 1, 2019)

The caption says "Nakajima C6N1 Myrt, night fighter version with 30mm cannon flown by Lt. Hiroshi Yasuda and Lt. Taro Fukuda of the 302-ku of 3rd Air Corps at Atsugi Base in August, 1945".


----------



## The Basket (Oct 2, 2019)

Yeah. I is knowing but not knowing enough.

It looked like the B6N but I knews it wasn't.

So close but no cigar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 2, 2019)

I didn't mind whichever as they are like twins


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 2, 2019)

C6N it is, I stand corrected.......again.

Someday I am going to have to put the thousands of hours study
I have in WW2 fighters and gear that focus on the bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 2, 2019)

This is a good chance to compare.
C6N is a little longer than B6N by 0.285 meters (11.22") .






Nakajima B6N1 Jill
Source: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/df/f0/8fdff062aff513b17791881c0afd3acc.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Oct 3, 2019)

Hairog said:


> The B 29 was clearly not used as intended, and could easily have been replaced by B-17s and the B-24s for the extermination of Japanese civilians.



Except the B-17/B-24 carried much smaller bomb loads over much shorter distances. B-24’s didn’t start attacking the home Islands from Pacific bases until July 1945 from Ie Shima off Okinawa.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 4, 2019)

We would have not needed the B-29 if we would have built giant aircraft carriers - with bomber-sized runways, built them out of ice like giant iceburgs - unsinkable. Crazy? It was seriously considered. Project Habakkuk - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 5, 2019)

If I remember the ice carriers they were a mixture of wood pulp and ice. 
For the North Atlantic. 
Not the warmer waters of the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 5, 2019)

They would have carried their own refrigeration equipment, but one has to wonder about the laws of thermodynamics.
If they are resistant to melting, then they are also quite resistant to freezing to begin with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> They would have carried their own refrigeration equipment, but one has to wonder about the laws of thermodynamics.
> If they are resistant to melting, then they are also quite resistant to freezing to begin with.



It is true that if they are resistant to melting then they are quite resistant to freezing to begin with.

My daughter did a science fair project on Pykrete - the wood-pulp and ice mixture planned for the aircraft carrier. In theory Pykrete melts slower than pure-water ice. In my daughter's experiments that was somewhat true, but there is an in-between stage where the Pykrete somewhat retains its shape, but is very weakened. 

The ice-aircraft-carrier didn't get off the ground because before it was even really evaluated, the Allies were well on their way to building hundreds of escort carriers and numerous Independence and Essex-class fleet carriers. By early 1944, the B-29 offensive was getting ready in China, and plans were being made for conquest of the Marianas for B-29 bases there. 

The hypothesis behind my daughter's project was that maybe Pykrete could be used to create artificial icebergs to provide sea-ice habitat for polar bears in a world deprived of sea ice by climate change.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> They would have carried their own refrigeration equipment, but one has to wonder about the laws of thermodynamics.
> If they are resistant to melting, then they are also quite resistant to freezing to begin with.



It is true that if they are resistant to melting then they are quite resistant to freezing to begin with.

My daughter did a science fair project on Pykrete - the wood-pulp and ice mixture planned for the aircraft carrier. In theory Pykrete melts slower than pure-water ice. In my daughter's experiments that was somewhat true, but there is an in-between stage where the Pykrete somewhat retains its shape, but is very weakened. 

The ice-aircraft-carrier didn't get off the ground because before it was even really evaluated, the Allies were well on their way to building hundreds of escort carriers and numerous Independence and Essex-class fleet carriers. By early 1944, the B-29 offensive was getting ready in China, and plans were being made for conquest of the Marianas for B-29 bases there. 

The hypothesis behind my daughter's project was that maybe Pykrete could be used to create artificial icebergs to provide sea-ice habitat for polar bears in a world deprived of sea ice by climate change.


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> They would have carried their own refrigeration equipment, but one has to wonder about the laws of thermodynamics.
> If they are resistant to melting, then they are also quite resistant to freezing to begin with.



It is true that if they are resistant to melting then they are quite resistant to freezing to begin with.

My daughter did a science fair project on Pykrete - the wood-pulp and ice mixture planned for the aircraft carrier. In theory Pykrete melts slower than pure-water ice. In my daughter's experiments that was somewhat true, but there is an in-between stage where the Pykrete somewhat retains its shape, but is very weakened. 

The ice-aircraft-carrier didn't get off the ground because before it was even really evaluated, the Allies were well on their way to building hundreds of escort carriers and numerous Independence and Essex-class fleet carriers. By early 1944, the B-29 offensive was getting ready in China, and plans were being made for conquest of the Marianas for B-29 bases there. 

The hypothesis behind my daughter's project was that maybe Pykrete could be used to create artificial icebergs to provide sea-ice habitat for polar bears in a world deprived of sea ice by climate change.


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 9, 2019)

Sorry for the duplicate post - I couldn't tell that the server accepted the first one.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 10, 2019)

If Polar Bears lived on wood pulp icebergs I would have to ask about food sources for said bears on said Pykrete icebergs.
Also can you imagine Titanic 2 if it hit a iceberg made of Pykrete? My God the humanity.

Mythbusters did a bit on this so I would see if its on youtube.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 14, 2019)

Well, even my middle-school daughter figured the pyecrete iceberg wasn't a very good idea.


----------

