How good was Japanese aviation?

[Cojimar 1945]

The wehrmacht may have had very capable soldiers but since Germany's defeat the country's military is not considered to be among the world's strongest. It seems ironic that the Germans would be so capable yet become irrelevant in the postwar era.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The wehrmacht may have had very capable soldiers but since Germany's defeat the country's military is not considered to be among the world's strongest. It seems ironic that the Germans would be so capable yet become irrelevant in the postwar era.

I promise you that they are not as irrelevent as you say they are. They may not be that strong on paper but the German military is quite strong.

The soldiers still recieve some of the best training in the world and the German NCO is still one of the top just as it was in WW2.
The German tank force made up of Leopard II's is one of the best tanks to built in modern times.
The German soldiers use G-36 which is a damng good gun.
German Airborne troops are considered very elite.
German mountain troops are the best in the world.
German Airforce is made up of capable aircraft such as the Mig-29 and the Eurofighter (coming on line now).
German Navy is lacking in large explosiveness but the new U-Boots that they are putting out are the most quiet subs in the World.

Where Germany is now lacking is the fact that it is a small force. Because of WW2 they are not allowed to have a larger force. It is for Defense only.

The German ministry however would like to enlargen the force and get more involved in international affairs with NATO. It just does not look like it will be approved.

 

[Glider]

Have to agree with Deralder on his comments and would suggest that the other problem is the Policians holding the soldiers back. I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.

 

[plan_D]

But, no offence to Germany, the world is justified to be at least mildly cautious. Personally, I would not be because Germany is a great ally (and a great country) but I don't blame NATO for being cautious over a German armament.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have to agree with Deralder on his comments and would suggest that the other problem is the Policians holding the soldiers back. I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.

The problem is in fighting between polotical parties. Some wishing to be more involved and some wishing to keep Germansy military as a pure defence force.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

smaller forces are typical of Europe though, the up side of it is that European troops tend to be better trained than those of larger forces, and often in very specialised roles over the wide range of enviropments found in Europe, but a lot of the forces wouldn't be as strong as they are if it weren't for the strong international co-operation in Europe, but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?

 

[mkloby]

smaller forces are typical of Europe though, the up side of it is that European troops tend to be better trained than those of larger forces, and often in very specialised roles over the wide range of enviropments found in Europe, but a lot of the forces wouldn't be as strong as they are if it weren't for the strong international co-operation in Europe, but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?

I know that you're speaking in general terms, but I want to point this out regarding the "better trained because they're smaller" argument: the US trains several other nation's pilots!
This is only other nations pilots that I have trained with:
Germany
Italy - Regia Marina
Spain
Denmark
India

I know for sure that all the Italian naval aviators are trained in the US, and I believe that it's the other nation's naval aviators not AF pilots that we train.
I'm sure there are even more, as this is just from my personal experience.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?

Not sure. The Bundeswehr at the hight of the Cold War had 495,000 military personel. In 1990 it was reduced to 370,000. I has since been reduced again to a little more than 250,000 personel of which 50,000 are conscripts.

 

[JoeB]

Vice-Admiral Nagumo Chuichi arrived in the Bay of Bengal on the 2nd April, 1942 with five aircraft carriers to attack Trincomalee in Ceylon. Vice-Admiral Ozawa Jisabura attacked Cocanda and Vizagapatam on the 5th April. On the 9th Trincomalee was attacked by Nagumo and the RAF attacked Nagumo's flagship, the Akagi.

I'm finding the proper information but that's what I can remember. So, naturally, the Zero would have been met by the RAF.

A good general source for Allied fighters v the Japanese Army and Navy fighters is "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, first 2 vols about 1941-42 SEA, a third recent one about Burma for the rest of the war. Afficianados pick at minor errors in his chronologies, but still a remarkable book. Two other narrower ones "Flying Tigers" by Ford and "Doomed at the Start" by Bartsch (US fighters in the Philippines 1941-42).

The AVG did not meet JNAF A6M's. Their opposition was mostly JAAF, ie. Army, Type 97's (Ki-27 later dubbed "Nate") with increasing proportion of Type 1's (Ki-43, "Oscar") as time went one. The AVG outscored the JAAF around 3:1 (accepting Japanese loss records), strictly fighter v fighter ratio.

The RAF met mainly Japanese Army fighters too, but did meet the A6M's in some cases over Malaya, and then in the Japanese raids on Ceylon. The exchange ratio's throughout were heavily in favor of the Japanese well over 3:1 against the Brits, sometimes much worse (eg. Ceylon). There are many extenuating circumstance, not to start an AVG v. RAF or general Brits/US debate thread, but this is the apparent fact, per Shores which uses both sides' records. The Hurricane didn't even have >1 exchange ratio even against the Nate.

The USAAF P-40's in Philippines, Dutch East Indies and defence of Australia in up to mid 1942 mainly met the JNAF and were on the short end of around 1:3 ratio. They did OK in their few encounters with the JAAF, all cases Nates.

The USN F4F's didn't meet intense Japanese fighter opposition until May '42 so it's not quite apples and apples with "come as you are" fighting the landbased Allied fighters had to do in SEA. The USN/USMC F4F's achieved an exchange ratio of almost exactly 1:1 v A6M's from May to November (climax of G'canal). They didn't meet any JAAF fighters till early 1943. Sources there are Lundstrom "First Team" 2 volumes and Frank "Guadalcanal".

The Japanese fighter units, especially their navy, had excellent success in general in 1942, for whatever combination of plane, tactical, supply, strategic intiative (but not numerical superiority overall in general) etc etc reasons, that's the fact, absolutely not a myth. What would happen in a paper or computer match up of the planes, in an operational vacuum?, I've no idea. Nobody consistently beat the JNAF fighters in the real situation until well into 1943. The USN tie was the best Allied perforamce in 1942 against them. How the AVG would have done against the JNAF, given its unmatched success among Allied units v the JAAF, is a very interesting what if.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This was from an earlier post...

Here is an amazing wesite.....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroo...of_tables.html

I found in there a table for 1942 Kills/ Losses

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s)....

FEAF
LOSSES
Jan - 0
Feb - 44
Mar - 12
Apr - 0
May - 32
Jun - 28
Jul - 11
Aug - 11
Sep - 10
Oct - 0
Nov - 32
Dec - 8

FEAF
KILLS
Jan 0
Feb 20
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 20
Jul 4
Aug 41
Sep 0
Oct 6
Nov 25
Dec 54

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations.

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943).

 

[JoeB]

This was from an earlier post...


For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese.

The big problem with such figures is that the kills are claims. The actual Japanese losses would be much lower; according to the references above across a range of early campaigns Japanese air combat losses were only 25-40% of what the Allies claimed. Also it's not clear those kills exclude Japanese bombers. And actually going the other way, the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then, P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March, and P-39's didn't enter combat, in New Guinea, till late April.

Anyway, I believe the only way to assess combat success is with *both* sides' records of losses in the same combats. That's what the references I mentioned above do for most of 1941-42 Allied v Japanese fighter combats, and according to that the P-39 and P-40 had a fighter v fighter real, not claimed, exchange ratio of about 1:3 (against them, that is) through the middle of '42. That's also not including AVG or its USAAF successor unit, the 23rd FG, in China. The FEAF fighter combat was mostly against A6M's, just a few cases v Army Nates, none v. Oscars which weren't encountered ex-AVG/China by the US until 1943. The P-38, as well as better tactics, numbers and basic strategic situation, brought the USAAF to (joining with the USN/USMC in) parity against mainly the JNAF in the Solomons by the first half of 1943, and the USAAF alone really was beating the JAAF alone in New Guinea, in increasingly one sided fashion (but still not what was claimed at the time) by the second half of 1943.

Joe

 

[JoeB]

double post

 

[Gnomey]

That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for my take on Japanese aviation it was similar to the Italians they had some good planes but they never produced them in the numbers that the Allies produced their planes in (except for the Zero and perhaps the Oscar). Both countries had good planes near the end of the(ir) war but it was all a case of to little to late.

 

[JoeB]

That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.

Joe

The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.

 

[JoeB]

The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.

The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).

There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.

It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).

There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.

It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.

Joe

Here's the other link - also not the admitted losses...

United States Army Air Forces in World War II


Agree totally - but one thing about the "claims." They elevated in numbers at a time when the Japanese started to take heavy losses - late 1942 early 1943, and the claims and actual losses compiled somewhat at a proportional rate. The common denominator there was the introduction in numbers of the P-38. The "claims" may give a distorted picture and if you take them for even 70% of their reliability it still shows the pounding the Japanese were taking. But going back to the earlier discussion, it also shows that even in mid/ late summer 1942 with their inferior P-39s and P-40, the FEAF did hold their own against the Japanese and their nimble Zero and Oscar...

 

[iart7]

Either way you look at the war could not have been won without each other. Where would the US have based there bombers out of to bomb Germany with had it not been for England? What would the Russians have done with out lend lease? Would the US had been able to sustain a Night and Day bombing campaign without the British?

That's why it was so important for there to be a dedicated group of "allies" in the War on Iraq. Except for the British, most allies have not been willing to place their troops' lives on the line. If the allies could have guarded the borders between Syria and Iran, the insurgency could not have corrupted the war effort after the "war was won". I also believe the WMD's were moved to Syria. Sure Bush made mistakes and this was one of the worst mistakes made, but WHERE WERE THE ALIES? It's not like terrorism is not a world-wide concern, is it?

That said, the best Pacific fighter was definately the HELLCAT!

Did someone mention the fact that the captured Zero gave Americans valuable information about Zero's dive characteristics (could not pull to the right or left?)

iArt

=============================================
from GLIDER:

I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.

No thanks to the Spanish in the War on Terror... remember what they did after a terror bomb of their train system? Three days after the attacks, the presiding Spanish government was defeated in ... about a terrorist attack in Madrid. All it would take is an Al Qaeda attack in Berlin or Frankfurt and perhaps the Germans would withdraw their troops? Maybe not, but what Spain did was concede the war to the enemy. Imagine if the Germans retreated from France in WWII when resistance fighters blew up a train station or railroad track? UNTHINKABLE ...

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wildcat]

the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then,

Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.

P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March,

True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin, and if this list is including non combat losses, I believe alot of US P-40's were written off in Australia due to training mishaps and long ferry flights under taken by in-experianced pilots.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.

According to the site those are air-to-air losses only.[/QUOTE]United States Army Air Forces in World War II