did you know the A5M and Ki-27 were the same aircraft?

[Clayton Magnet]

Nakajima Ki-27 WW II Aircraft "Identification of …:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpfKGjqAqlM
Surprisingly bad intelegence on aircraft identification. I would like to know which fighter they thought was a P-36 knock off.
funny none the less

 

[razor1uk]

Well early on in the war the US forces were quite myopic to what aerial equipments they might face from Japan, even ignoring the reports from the Flying Tigers volunteers as being delusional and/or influenced by Japanese propaganda.

To me the acrual descriptions of IJA IJN A/C could be the Nate, the A5M2, the Oscar the Zero, all different A/C's. manufacturers and designs; although given the few Pacific non Flying Tiger reports that led to this film, when eager pilots jump to conclusions with no factual basis to base upon, this is what you'd get.

 

[Wurger]

Of course Nakajima Ki-27 and Mitsubishi A5M were two different planes. Each of them was of different shape of the fuselage and wings etc... A5M was of eliptic wings and tails with non retractable landing gear. The cockpit was of "open" type with a windshield only.Unless it would be the A5M2 Model 22 with the "close" cockpit. The Ki-27 was of a trapezoidal in shape wings with rounded wing tips. Her horizontal stabilizers and elevators were of similar to A5M eliptical shape but the fin and rudder weren't. The landing gear was also non retractable and quite similar to the Mitsubishi plane. The cockpit of "close" type with a slided back central part. However flying with the slided back cockpit conopy it could seem like the one of the "open"type. Looking at the film I got an impression that the improved fighter looks like the Ki-27. And perhaps they could mean the plane. However the Nate didn't have the retractable landing gear and eliptic in shape wings.

Also I would like to pay your attention to the final scene at the end of the film where we can see groups of P-39 Airacobras flying.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I was being facetious. Knowing the rivalry between IJNAS and the IJAAS, Im sure Mitsubishi and Nakajima would have had less than kind words for this film.

 

[parsifal]

At the outbreak of hostilities, both the A5M and the Ki-27 were mainstays in the IJN and JAAF. Little was known of them and a quickly produced aircraft recognition film like this is unsurprising.

 

[michaelmaltby]

..... under rating the opponent isn't poor research, it's arrogance. A "mongrel airforce"? Hardly.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well, in the early going, Allied fliers encountered Me 109s, Me 110s, Stukas and He 111s, as well as a variety of Japanese planes never before seen, nor ever again.
In North Africa the Germans shot down a lot of P-46s.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Aw, come on guys, everybody knows they were just P-26s made of bamboo and tissue paper with different color schemes. What's with you guys anyway??

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

The Ki-27 was known by the IJA as the Type 97, the number "97" referring to the Ki-27's year of operational service entry (1937) being year 2597 on the Japanese imperial calendar (since Emperor Jimmu, according to legend, began governing in 660 BCE, 660+1937=2597). Allied intelligence referred to the Ki-27 as Mitsubishi Navy Type 97 fighter (Wieliczko and Szeremeta 2004).

Wieliczko, Leszek A. and Zygmunt Szeremeta. Nakajima Ki 27 Nate (bilingual Polish/English). Lublin, Poland: Kagero, 2004. ISBN 83-89088-51-7.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course Nakajima Ki-27 and Mitsubishi A5M were two different planes.

But they should have been the same plane. With limited capacity the IJN and IJAF should have shared fighter designs. In the FAA, every British-designed single-seat fighter after the interwar Flycatcher until the postwar Scimitar was shared or co-developed with the RAF. It's just an efficient way for smaller powers to field both land and carrier based fighters.

Why have a concurrent Ki-27/A5M, Ki-43/A6M and Ki-84/A7M? What could the Ki-27 do that the A5M could not or vice versa? Looking at the below, the Ki-27 certainly looks the more modern aircraft, why not add a hook?

 

[Admiral Beez]

In North Africa the Germans shot down a lot of P-46s.

Really? I wouldn't think the Germans even knew about this aircraft in order to misidentify it.

 

[tyrodtom]

But they should have been the same plane. With limited capacity the IJN and IJAF should have shared fighter designs. In the FAA, every British-designed single-seat fighter after the interwar Flycatcher until the postwar Scimitar was shared or co-developed with the RAF. It's just an efficient way for smaller powers to field both land and carrier based fighters.

Why have a concurrent Ki-27/A5M, Ki-43/A6M and Ki-84/A7M? What could the Ki-27 do that the A5M could not or vice versa? Looking at the below, the Ki-27 certainly looks the more modern aircraft, why not add a hook?

View attachment 567584 View attachment 567585

Just adding a tailhook involves some structure additions, and carrier operations themselves require some beefing up of any airframe.
Even though the A5M and Ki-27 had more or less the same engine, the Nakajima Kotobuki of different mod #. The Claude had about 240 lbs more empty weight than the Ki-27, probably due to that extra re-enforcement .
But beyond that the Japanese Navy, and Army could agree on about nothing.
Different weapons in sometimes different calibers, you couldn't even take a Navy bomb and install it on a Army aircraft without some modification until the end of WW2.
Endless disagreements that no doubt didn't advance their war efforts.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

But they should have been the same plane. With limited capacity the IJN and IJAF should have shared fighter designs.

Based on the false assumption that some semblance of civility could ever exist between IJA and IJN. Interservice rivalry was an eternal cutthroat struggle with them.

why not add a hook

Dream on, Sonny. T'aint that simple. A plane designed for light weight, as both of these were, needs to be designed from the KEEL up for carrier operations. Impact loads on the after fuselage, tailwheel assembly, main gear assemblies, and center section spars are many times greater than on a land plane. Carrier landings in those days were "chop and drop" affairs, way more concerned with accuracy of touchdown than smoothness of landing. Forward and downward visibility was paramount so frequently angles of incidence were adjusted to give a more nose-low attitude in landing configuration. There's more to it than meets the eye.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Greg Boeser]

Really? I wouldn't think the Germans even knew about this aircraft in order to misidentify it.

They knew that Curtiss was working on it, so when Kittyhawks and P-40Fs started turning up, they assumed that's what they were.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A plane designed for light weight, as both of these were, needs to be designed from the KEEL up for carrier operations.

Then start with the naval aircraft and remove the carrier fittings for the IJAF.

But yes, the government, that controls the purse strings and contracts must force cooperation.

 

[tyrodtom]

Then start with the naval aircraft and remove the carrier fittings for the IJAF.

But yes, the government, that controls the purse strings and contracts must force cooperation.

You really need to inform yourself on how things worked in Japan politically, in the 30's.
If a government official made a decision not popular with the military, he might get a very unpleasant visit by a Army, or Naval officer.

 

[Zipper730]

Well early on in the war the US forces were quite myopic to what aerial equipments they might face from Japan, even ignoring the reports from the Flying Tigers volunteers as being delusional and/or influenced by Japanese propaganda.

Why did they not listen to these reports? Or, moreover, why did they see them as being insane?

 

[tyrodtom]

They got no reports from Flying Tiger volunteers before the start of the war, because the Flying Tigers never became operational until after Dec. 7 th.
They got a report from Chennault, but that from his observation of the Japanese operations in China. Not all of it first hand observation.
Reports in that era took time to work their way through the military organizations, and then get distributed through the chain of command, then back down to where was needed.
Then if someone looks and decides it's BS, it may never go any further.

No different than today, but then the process took longer even when it did work right.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If a government official made a decision not popular with the military, he might get a very unpleasant visit by a Army, or Naval officer.

A twentieth century ninja. "Gekujo", or "insubordination in furtherance of a patriotic cause" was common among radical young IJA officers, whose mindset could be seen as the oriental equivalent of the "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" stand popular among ultranationalists in western countries. Imbued with a corrupted version of samurai spirit, a distain for "gaijin", (foreign barbarians), and a belief in the destiny of the Japanese race to lead Asia into world dominance, these young firebrands were determined to remove from the political scene any "corrupting influence" among the Emperor's advisors (ie: any politician, diplomat, or senior officer who was conciliatory, or insufficiently hostile toward the west).
IJN was reasonably successful in keeping this infection suppressed, but it was rampant in the Army.
Read "Rising Sun: the Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" by John Toland. It was written when many of the prime movers of the period were still alive, and he got to interview many of them.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Why did they not listen to these reports? Or, moreover, why did they see them as insane?

"Chennault is an egotistical maverick alarmist, and obsessed with the Orient!"
"He thinks the Japs can walk on water."
"Everybody knows those little yellow monkeys with their coke bottle glasses and their wood and fabric biplanes can't build a modern warplane!"
"If we wind up fighting the little yellow bastards, we'll have the biggest turkey shoot we've ever seen!"