Here is my summary of the flight school students called Yokaren by the year.
Each number for fighter, bomber or reconnaissance unknown with the list.
Hellcat vs Zero
- Thread starter Garyt
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here is my summary of the flight school students called Yokaren by the year.
Each number for fighter, bomber or reconnaissance unknown with the list.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
WOW, that is really impressive!
Glider
Captain
Its very impressive and once again I find myself thinking about the what if's. Had Japan been on a full war footing and the 44,000+ students been trained in 1942, and the 117,000 in 1943 life would easily have been very different. The end the same but the time and cost very different.
parsifal
Colonel
Not really. The japanese needed every warm bodied pilot they could get their hands on in 1942, and to do that, made deliberate decisions to curtail their training programs. they striped out their training schools of most skilled instructors, and also most of the trainees nearing completion. All in the hope that war would be a short one, and they could "shock and awe" the allies to the peace table after a few months of continuous defeat.
after this disnt work, and they got their noses bloodied, they realized they needed pilots in a hurry. The training schools were exhorted to turn out large numbers of poor quality pilots, which they did, but these were just sheer chaff. there were insufficient instructors, training aircraft, and failities to teach the new pilots any survivavl skills. worse, most of the conversion training was done, from cold, with trainees assigned to a combat nit, where they were expected to learn on the job. results were predictable, and catastrophic.
it also needs to be understood from those figures, a couple of things. Firstly, and most importantly, the Japanese had a very high washout rate. Japan in the 1930s was not a particulalry technical society,and failure rates in the pilot training schools reflected this. It took about 5 years for a japanese pilot to get his navy carrier wings in 1941. Washout rates in that year were about 90%. There were an average of 16 carrier qualified pilots entering service each month in 1942....these were mostly the survivors of the 1941 classes. later, qualifying trainee rates improved,m but only because the Japanese started to accepot any standard as a passing grade.
- Thread starter
- #105
For clarification, are these how many entered the training program, or completed it by year?
I would think the kamikaze trainees would be included here as well, though you would think because of this 44 and 45 would have higher pilot mortality rates.
IIRC, late war graduates (45?) only required 40 hours of flight time, so these graduates certainly do not mean as much earlier ones.
I would think the kamikaze trainees would be included here as well, though you would think because of this 44 and 45 would have higher pilot mortality rates.
IIRC, late war graduates (45?) only required 40 hours of flight time, so these graduates certainly do not mean as much earlier ones.
Last edited:
Parsifal, I spotted something in your older post, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hellcat-vs-zero-40782-2.html#post1125319 and got a question now, do you remember by any chance what was then number of Japanese unit on the Wake ? Or rather which Kokutai was responsible for air defense ?
Edit: Found it - 252 Kokutai.
From the report (item reference code: C08051663000 - http://www.jacar.go.jp/) it looks like there was a couple of sorties this day, on page 21 I see that overall 26 Zeros participated in first combat, 23 scrambled 03:05 and than patrol of 3 at 08:30.
From this first page (if I'm reading correctly - here Shinpachi could help) it seems to me that in first action Japanese lost 1 machine and 15 are missing.
I'm not sure as quality is bad, but seems that majority of them returned:
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/782/d9u4.jpg
Than we have page 23, where 7 Zeros went into combat, from this 2 planes are missing (and 2 pilots) and one made a "soft landing".
Page 26 - again 7 Zeros participated in some action, 2 are missing and one made a safe landing in damaged plane.
Page 28 - 5 missing, 1 injured.
Page 29 - 6 missing
Page 30 - 3 missing, 2 injured
Page 31 - 2 missing, 1 softlanded
I'm curious how many of those Zeros came back than, and what was final outcome - how many planes were usable in combat for 7th October (and next days). I guess only one here, who can help is Shinpachi.
Hiro
Edit: Found it - 252 Kokutai.
From the report (item reference code: C08051663000 - http://www.jacar.go.jp/) it looks like there was a couple of sorties this day, on page 21 I see that overall 26 Zeros participated in first combat, 23 scrambled 03:05 and than patrol of 3 at 08:30.
From this first page (if I'm reading correctly - here Shinpachi could help) it seems to me that in first action Japanese lost 1 machine and 15 are missing.
I'm not sure as quality is bad, but seems that majority of them returned:
http://imageshack.com/a/img834/782/d9u4.jpg
Than we have page 23, where 7 Zeros went into combat, from this 2 planes are missing (and 2 pilots) and one made a "soft landing".
Page 26 - again 7 Zeros participated in some action, 2 are missing and one made a safe landing in damaged plane.
Page 28 - 5 missing, 1 injured.
Page 29 - 6 missing
Page 30 - 3 missing, 2 injured
Page 31 - 2 missing, 1 softlanded
I'm curious how many of those Zeros came back than, and what was final outcome - how many planes were usable in combat for 7th October (and next days). I guess only one here, who can help is Shinpachi.
Hiro
Last edited:
Kamikaze Casualties
===============
Navy 2,535
(Yokarens approx. 1,800)
(Veterans approx. 700)
Army 1,844
Total 4,379
Half of the Yokaren casualties were from the 1943 entry.
Data source: "War History of Japan Vol. 8 Yokaren" published by Mainichi Press, 1981.
And for references,
Imperial Japanese Navy Pilots Ratio by the Airframe (1941-1945)
================================================
Fighter 39%
Light bomber 19%
Midium bomber 25%
Heavy bomber 2%
Others 15%
Calculation:
Fighter 13,587 x 1 pilot = 13,587 pilots 39%
Light bomber 6,728 x 1 pilot = 6,728 pilots 19%
Midium bomber 4,466 x 2 pilots = 8,932 pilots 25%
Heavy bomber 384 x 2 pilots = 768 pilots 2%
Others 5,130 x 1 pilot = 5,150 pilots 15%
Total 30,295 airframes approx. 35,165 pilots
Note: "Others" could have included approx. 2,000 trainers.
No information but a 1945 entry student testifies there were few trainers for them except flight simulators.
Data source:
ƒRƒ‰ƒ€02Fq‹ó‹@¶ŽY—Ê'ÉŒ©'é"ú•Ä·
The 88th Imperial Parliament Minutes dated September 4, 1945
- Thread starter
- #108
You are welcome, Garyt.
No accurate or satisfactory information on this matter at the moment but, according to my calculation, total number of students from 1930 to 1942 were 20,630 whereas total pilots number 35,165 by 1945. 14,535 were in shortage for the 1943-1945. So, it would have been around 5,000 on average per year for the last stage of war and all the rest students would have remained as spare pilots or on-board crew.
No accurate or satisfactory information on this matter at the moment but, according to my calculation, total number of students from 1930 to 1942 were 20,630 whereas total pilots number 35,165 by 1945. 14,535 were in shortage for the 1943-1945. So, it would have been around 5,000 on average per year for the last stage of war and all the rest students would have remained as spare pilots or on-board crew.
Last edited:
Conslaw
Senior Airman
As for the most revolutionary aircraft of WWII:
I think the slam dunks for the list are the ME262 and the B-29. The A6M Zero deserves a place as the first successful naval air superiority fighter also as the first long-range single-engined fighter. As to new aircraft, I nominate the ME-323 heavy transport. It redefined what was possible with transport planes, even though it was too underpowered to be successful. I also nominate the TBF/TBM Avenger - a big capacious aircraft that could be used for whatever the navy could fit in the box.
I think the slam dunks for the list are the ME262 and the B-29. The A6M Zero deserves a place as the first successful naval air superiority fighter also as the first long-range single-engined fighter. As to new aircraft, I nominate the ME-323 heavy transport. It redefined what was possible with transport planes, even though it was too underpowered to be successful. I also nominate the TBF/TBM Avenger - a big capacious aircraft that could be used for whatever the navy could fit in the box.
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great information! Is there any information about JAAF pilots?
Both aircraft suffered from nearly the same history in my opinion: When they were first produced, they dominated air combat. Later in the war, both became outclassed as newer aircraft caught up to them in performance. Neither aircraft had much development potential. A Kinsei engine in a Zero would have made it LESS inferior in performance, but it was never going to be a 400 mph fighter. The XF6F-6 Hellcat also wasn't able to show the same improvement in performance with a P&W R-2800-18W as the F4U-4 Corsair did, thus its intended replacement would have been the F8F.
Neither aircraft had much improvement during its service life. Other than roll rate with the improved ailerons from the F6F-3 to the F6F-5, nothing much changed. The high speed roll rate also came with a significantly reduced low speed roll rate though.
The "improvements" from A6M2 to A6M5 were also not great. The Japanese even stated that "the fighting performance of the Mark II (A6M3 and A6M5) was inferior to the Mark I (A6M2) at medium altitudes and below but becomes progressively better above 8000 meters". (from the translated manual captured at Kwajalein)
Although 1130 HP versus 940 HP from the Sakae 12 to Sakae 21 seems like a great increase, the actual increase is a bit less significant when the outputs at various altitudes are compared. The increased weight pretty much offset what little power increase there was.
Regarding climb rates between the A6M and F6F: Although in absolute maximum climb rate, the A6M is better, it is accomplished at a very low airspeed (around 140 mph IIRC). A shallow high speed climb gives all the advantages back to the Hellcat.
Now to change the subject....
I believe one very good place to find actual exchange rates in a few air battles is in the book "Genda's Blade". The authors list actual losses from both sides in a few encounters between the 343 Kokutai and US forces. These were the best remaining Japanese Navy pilots toward the end of the war and were still losing (by my count) at a rate of around 3 to 1 against USN and AAF.
- Ivan.
Neither aircraft had much improvement during its service life. Other than roll rate with the improved ailerons from the F6F-3 to the F6F-5, nothing much changed. The high speed roll rate also came with a significantly reduced low speed roll rate though.
The "improvements" from A6M2 to A6M5 were also not great. The Japanese even stated that "the fighting performance of the Mark II (A6M3 and A6M5) was inferior to the Mark I (A6M2) at medium altitudes and below but becomes progressively better above 8000 meters". (from the translated manual captured at Kwajalein)
Although 1130 HP versus 940 HP from the Sakae 12 to Sakae 21 seems like a great increase, the actual increase is a bit less significant when the outputs at various altitudes are compared. The increased weight pretty much offset what little power increase there was.
Regarding climb rates between the A6M and F6F: Although in absolute maximum climb rate, the A6M is better, it is accomplished at a very low airspeed (around 140 mph IIRC). A shallow high speed climb gives all the advantages back to the Hellcat.
Now to change the subject....
I believe one very good place to find actual exchange rates in a few air battles is in the book "Genda's Blade". The authors list actual losses from both sides in a few encounters between the 343 Kokutai and US forces. These were the best remaining Japanese Navy pilots toward the end of the war and were still losing (by my count) at a rate of around 3 to 1 against USN and AAF.
- Ivan.
Perhaps we could add a disclaimer: within confines of Asia/Pacific, 1st the Zero, then the Hellcat dominated?
The XF6F-6 gained 45 mph at 25000 vs. the F6F-5, or about the same speed gain the F4U-4 gained over F4U-1 at same altitude. The F8F was primarily a replacement for the F4F, F8F's development started in 1943?
The Hellcat was inferior in raw performance against premier land-based fighters both in time it was introduced and by late war. It was Hellcat's docile handling, ability to give and take damage, useful radius/range that made it such a great CV fighter, not just the performance against most of Japanese A/C.
The F6F took part in the war less than 20 months, vs. Zero's 58 months? The addition of the R-2800-18 was a no-brainer.
If I'm not mistaking it badly, the speed went up from 330+ mph to 350+ mph when Sakae 21 was installed? The better altitude power of the '21' helped a lot, and the power at lower altitudes was also better. Granted, the installation of self-sealing tanks would've eaten much of the fuel load of the Zero, that was probably the reason why it was not pursued.
Imperial Japanese Army Pilots Ratio by the Airframe (1941-1945)
================================================
Fighter 41%
Light bomber 9%
Midium bomber 18%
Others 32%
Calculation:
Fighter 16,124 x 1 pilot = 16,124 pilots 41%
Light bomber 3,449 x 1 pilot = 3,449 pilots 9%
Midium bomber 3,456 x 2 pilots = 6,912 pilots 18%
Others approx. 12,471 x 1 pilot = approx. 12,471 pilots 32%
Total approx. 35,500 airframes approx. 38,956 pilots
Data source:
ƒRƒ‰ƒ€02Fq‹ó‹@¶ŽY—Ê'ÉŒ©'é"ú•Ä·
The 88th Imperial Parliament Minutes dated September 4, 1945
- Thread starter
- #117
buffnut453
Captain
The Special Volunteer Officer Course must have been a real cake walk - almost everybody passed!
parsifal
Colonel
as the war progressed, the japanese were not lacking for pilots, but what they did lacked was experienced pilots and carrier traine pilots. In the case of carrier trained pilots, the only carrier more or less permanently engaged in training was the hosho, and this placed an upper limit on carrier qualifying pilots, to a maximum of about 35 per month and even then, with reduced training times that made the japanese jockeys uncompetitive. For all the jockeys, the flight hours were cut and cut again, to the point that Japanese pilots became just so much cannon fodder. Its really didnt matter how many they put in the sky, they were just a bunch of rookies flying around in outmoded aircraft, waiting to hacked down by the swarms of hellcats engulfing them.
- Thread starter
- #120
I think it was on here earlier, by the late stages of the war 40 hours was deemed sufficient flight time. I'm not sure if the kamikaze's even received that.
I think the usage of kamikazes was a good indication of the poor pilotry. The pilots were so bad that in order to hit something they had to pilot it all the way to the target, unlike a skilled dive bomber or torpedo pilot.
