Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (1 Viewer)

[Greg Boeser]

Not all the claims are against Tainan.

Actually, they are. As of 1 April 1942, the fighter unit of the 4th AG, originally made up of pilots and aircraft of the Chitose AG from the Marshalls, and the Kawai Buntai from Palua (itself made up of pilots from Tainan and 3rd AGs), was amalgamated into the Tainan AG, the main body of which did not arrive at Rabaul until mid-April aboard Komaki Maru. The 4th AG fighter unit was originally equipped with A5Ms but these were kept at Rabaul and steadily augmented by Zeroes. By 28 April the Tainan had 24 Zeroes at Lea and eight more at Rabaul, along with six A5Ms. The A5Ms, while scoring some early successes against RAAF Catalinas and Hudsons, were no match for B-17s and B-26s and were withdrawn from front line duties during May.
Nishizawa was part of the 4th AG and scored several kills in A5Ms before the arrival of the Zeroes.
Of note is that no Tainan pilots were lost defending Rabaul, despite numerous claims by bomber gunners.
Between April and November in operations over New Guinea, Rabaul and Northern Australia, 81 Allied aircraft shot down can be directly attributed to Tainan pilots - 17 Kittyhawks/Warhawks, 38 P-39/P-400s, five A-24s, one Hudson, 10 B-25s, 5 B-26s, 5 B-17s.
So, according to Ruffato's analysis the Tainan had roughly a 4:1 advantage over the P-39/P-400 in 1942, 3:1 over P-40s. 5:1 vs allied medium and light bombers, and 5:3 vs B-17s.
Clearly the way to defeat the Zero is with more B-17s.
Significantly, many allied flyers shot down lived to fight another day, whereas the Tainan pilots, eschewing parachutes and radios, ended up dead or captured.

 

[Greg Boeser]

5 P-39s of the 36th PS arrived at Port Moresby on 5 April 1942, led by Col "Buzz" Wagner as part of the first flexing of USAAF muscle, as it were, along with B-26s of the 22nd BG and B-25s of the 3rd BG. This is attested in several Australian war diaries. Strangely, it is not mentioned in Attack and Conquer, the popular history of the 8th FG by Stanaway and Hickey.

OK I lied. It is too mentioned in Attack and Conquer. Page 33. Falletta and Meng arrived at Port Moresby 6 April with a small contingent of Airacobras.
Andrew Thomas mentions the April 6 arrival in Tomahawk and Kittyhawk Aces of the RAF and Commonwealth.
Bruce Gamble in Fortress Rabaul.
Ruffato specifically cites entries in the 39th and 54th Militia Battalions' logs mentioning the arrival of five Airacobras/P-39s along with the B-25s and B-26s.

 

[parsifal]

You didn't lie, but I knew it wasn't correct either. But these sources you are quoting don't align with primary data sources like Johnstons war diary. He was there . he says the first of the P-39 groups arrived at the end of April. Wagner, whom you quoted as leading this advance group, had only just been discharged from hospital and was running around the 4 (???) airfields at which 8FG were stationed trying to get the group ready for deployment. It is possible that a small group (probably the five you are referring to) were deployed to horn island at this time (early April), but there are no recorded deployments to the Moresby airfields at this time. I can find only one reference in primary data sources that suggest there might be a deployment to Horn Island, but I don't like to rely on one source unless I have to . There were no USAAC controlled airfields at this time at Moresby, so RAAF records are going to show if they are there. they just aren't there at this time. The RAAF war diary shows them arriving at the end of April. Wagners 3 plane victory 30 april I did eventually track down as a strafing run over one of the auxiliary airfields in the huon Gulf area. They were destroyed as they were attempting to get airborne according to the Japanese ,

8FG performed a vital function don't get me wrong.and later they enjoyed more success. in the finish tainan was defeated. But that wasn't the reason for this discussion. Somewhere in the endless discussions about the aircobra, quite a few have claimed that the P-39 was equal to, or superior to the A6M . But here we have some fairly damning statistics that shows that it wasn't. Moreover we have two leading protagonists, one American, one Japanese, both agreeing that the p-39 was a poor mount.

 

[Greg Boeser]

39th Bn, stationed at Port Moresby reported on 5 April "A number of new type American planes arrive to carry out bombing operations on Jap Occupied territory. Approx 8 B-26, 5 B-25, 3 B-17, 5 P-39, 7 P-40 and 6 A-29."
The B-26s belonged to 22nd BG, the B-25s were from 3rd BG, the P-39s were 36th FS, 8th FG, the 7 P-40s were reinforcements for 75 Sqn RAAF, and the A-29s were actually A-24s of 8th BS, 3rd BG.

 

[parsifal]

39th Bn does not report the presence of these aircraft as confirmed. . They report the expectation of their arrival. Some, including the p-39s never arrived.

In any event, there is no evidence of their engagement to join the fight until end of April. Some sources say they took no part in the defensive effort until after May 4th. one even suggests it was May 12th before much happened. we do know that the main body of 36th FS was enroute from Townsville to Horn island April 26th, got lost and lost what appears to be either 9 or 11 a/c, and 6 pilots. We know that of the 5 P-39s at Horn Island 5 april (possibly) at least one had been lost in transit. 5 (5April) and 11 (26 April) adds up to 16 a/c, Just about an entire squadron. And at least 12 of them sitting on the bottom of the Coral Sea.

Yeah, P-39s were really effective in the defence of Moresby April 1942...., , .

 

[Juha2]

Ah, clearly there were a few P-39s at Port Moresby early in Apr. 1942. Both the monograph based on docus from the both sides and the unit history of the 8th FG quoted by Greg say so. And even the official history of the RAAF mentions, on p. 543, that on 6 April 42 "...Operating with the Kittyhawks were two American pilots flying Airacobras (P-39's), the first of a number of American pilots sent to New Guinea to gain combat experience in the area.Each of the Americans scored hits on an enemy bomber..." Can it be clearer than that?

 

[parsifal]

well put it this way. Its not relevant to the discussion whichever view is taken. Both sides did not think much of the P-39. Wagner submitted his report in May complaining abut its ineffectiveness, and Sakai in a post war interview expressed surprise that the P-39 that brought down the Zeke being flown by his friend Yoshino could suffer that fate with such an inferior a/c. Sakai put it down to the skill and determination of the American pilot flying on that day

 

[Greg Boeser]

Jack Jones, the pilot credited with Yoshino's demise would agree. He credits his success with the fact that the P-39s had an altitude advantage diving in on the Zeros which were harrying the B-26s at deck level. Yoshino pulled up in the typical Zero escape maneuver, but Jones' P-39 was able to convert his dive speed into a zoom climb which caught the Zero.
Here is the point where the Tainan's decision not to wear parachutes cost them a great pilot (credited with 15 kills), because, according to Jones, the Japanese pilot was forced out of his burning cockpit but rode the aircraft into the sea. Had he been wearing a parachute, he could have bailed out and been recovered, though the North Coast of New Guinea was a kind of "no man's land" with neither the Australians nor Japanese in firm control outside their scattered bases.

 

[fiftycal]

See post #62 this thread.

sure i will go to the hangar tomorrow afternoon and get a photo, its a bit corroded, but its pressed to be belly shape

 

[fiftycal]

i had a couple of 8th fg 39's, they flew from moresby, milne bay in late 43 then rotated back to qld and they took new planes up until late 43. i sold one, 41-38385 to hars not long ago, i think they are going to restore it with another one they have, it had kills on it from milne bay and was featured in a bell ad.

when they rotated back the 1st batch of planes were scrapped including the famous "sun setter", and the pilot of -85 (jemison) was killed in tolga qld when he dived -97 into the ground from 8,000ft for no apparent reason

theres a picture on sun setter being scrapped

 

[DarrenW]

Here is the point where the Tainan's decision not to wear parachutes cost them a great pilot (credited with 15 kills)....

So at best Yoshino may have had 4-5 "actual" kills, right? That's if we use a calculation oft performed on this forum, when discussing allied victory credits....

 

[XBe02Drvr]

So at best Yoshino may have had 4-5 "actual" kills, right? That's if we use a calculation oft performed on this forum, when discussing allied victory credits....

No, no, that only applies to the Allies who are notorious liars and exaggerators, not the Japanese and the Germans, who are universally known to be meticulously accurate in their scoring of kills!!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[parsifal]

Its not that the Japanese are any better or worse at overclaiming. I happen to think they are worse actually. Its that Allied claims, at least in the PTO were accepted after the war lock stock and barrel (well kinda...there was a recount after the war that revised USN figures substantially downward, but still based on allied claims only) An interim report by Japanese for Japanese was tabled to the USSBS but was not used in the final reports.

Its got nothing to do with whether the allies were inveterate liars or not. Its got nothing to do with the integrity of any of the pilots involved. It has everything to do with our willingness to accept any tripe served up to us by the official histories which milk this mismatch of information . The Germans and Japanese don't cop this criticism, because they don't have an agreedofficial version of history to criticise.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of it was blatant overclaiming and some was honest mistakes in the heat of battle. Fired at plane, saw smoke and figured it was damaged/on fire.
Things can get confusing real quick.
Firefighter story, One of the first times I went in as a nozzle man we entered through the kitchen to attack a couch fire in the living room (Push fire out the front window to save the rest of the house.) Lots of heat and smoke, can't see much more than a dim glow through the smoke. I point the nozzle and open it up and give it a couple of swirls and shut down to see effect. The glow is much smaller so I repeat. Still getting a pulsating red glow through the smoke and steam so I try it again. Still getting that pulsating red glow so one more time with the water. Smoke is thinning out, glow seems to be outside the house?? I move forward and things clear up! I am looking at a police car on the lawn with flashing lights

Nobody was shooting at me either.
Couch was destroyed by fire as were curtains and molding. Wall phone on the other side of the room was melted. Scorch marks (light charing) about 3-4 feet down from the ceiling all around the room.

 

[Greg Boeser]

So at best Yoshino may have had 4-5 "actual" kills, right? That's if we use a calculation oft performed on this forum, when discussing allied victory credits....

Who knows? Who cares? Different air forces used different criteria for awarding kills. Some awarded full credit for shared kills, others did not. In the end what mattered was which side could sustain the attritional nature of protracted air operations. The Tainan probably lost more aircraft on the ground to bombing and strafing and to operational accidents than in actual air combat. This is probably true for all air forces. Parsifal pointed that out earlier when he highlighted the disastrous losses suffered by the 8th FG just trying to get their planes from Townsville to Port Moresby. They were not unique.

 

[parsifal]

Absolutely. In the end, the Japanese report in their own tallies the loss of more than 6500 a/c to the end of 1943. Major cause from that wasnt due to air combat with enemy (Allied ) fighters. they lost something like 40% of a/c on the ground and a large percentage that simply failed to return, often when allied aircraft were nowhere near them. Navigational errors are thought to be the most prevalent cause for these unexplained losses.

The application of airpower is subtle and yet brutal at the same time. Losses to direct combat are not the major determinant of losses, or even the major cause or measure for victory. The losses arose from a whole host of other associated activities....being bombed, getting lost, simply wear and tear. The measure of success isn't that you shoot down 50 or 100 a/c, but that you are able to do the things you want to do with your air assets, whilst preventing, or making excessively costly for the opponent to do the same. its called force projection.

8FG took one hell of a beating May-September. they lost more than they shot down. that is absolutely not the way to measure their success.. They extracted a cost from the Japanese that was sufficient, and prevented their (the Japanese) air assets from materially affecting the battle on the ground and at sea. In the end that was what mattered. .

 

[DarrenW]

So Yoshino's victory tally is much lower than he boasted, some due to blatant overclaiming. Got it.

And I don't need an "official record" in order to critically analyze the personal accounts and memoirs of axis fighter pilots and their leaders. The veracity of their claims shouldn't be ignored just because they happened to be unfortunate enough to lose the war.

 

[DarrenW]

Who knows? Who cares?

If Yoshino's aerial victories don't really matter to you, why bring them up then?

 

[Glider]

Absolutely. In the end, the Japanese report in their own tallies the loss of more than 6500 a/c to the end of 1943. Major cause from that wasnt due to air combat with enemy (Allied ) fighters. they lost something like 40% of a/c on the ground and a large percentage that simply failed to return, often when allied aircraft were nowhere near them. Navigational errors are thought to be the most prevalent cause for these unexplained losses.

The application of airpower is subtle and yet brutal at the same time. Losses to direct combat are not the major determinant of losses, or even the major cause or measure for victory. The losses arose from a whole host of other associated activities....being bombed, getting lost, simply wear and tear. The measure of success isn't that you shoot down 50 or 100 a/c, but that you are able to do the things you want to do with your air assets, whilst preventing, or making excessively costly for the opponent to do the same. its called force projection.

8FG took one hell of a beating May-September. they lost more than they shot down. that is absolutely not the way to measure their success.. They extracted a cost from the Japanese that was sufficient, and prevented their (the Japanese) air assets from materially affecting the battle on the ground and at sea. In the end that was what mattered. .

Totally agree and its often overlooked as people get hung up with numbers. If you have the resources to handle the losses and can impose your will onto the battlefield then you win and the other guy loses

 

[parsifal]

Yoshino was credited with 15 victories as I understand it . That number is based on admitted losses from Allied sources rather than the over-inflated claims made by the Japanese flyers themselves.

What makes you believe he only shot down 4.5 allied a/c?