Agreed. The 190 had better armament, more armour, great performance and was quite maneuverble. Where as the Zero had speed and maneuverable. Id go with the 190 also over a Zero.
How good was Japanese aviation?
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Again that is because Englands focus was Germany.
The best pilots in WW2 was:
British, German, Romanian and Japanese.
I'm sorry but the American pilots was good because they are in large numbers. The supremacy was 20 / 1 in 1944.
In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!
In 1944, 23 august the Americans came here, in Romania to take the American prisoners buck. When they landing, our pilots was sidereted: American pilots don't now how to fly. They " ups a Daisy"!
Our very best pilot, Bazu Cantacuzino - 84 aerial victory - have make a historic flight in Italy, Fogia with his Me 109 G10 taking Colonel Gun with him, to take him there.
When Hi's arrive there, the colonel want to fly the Messerschmidt. Hi try but hi crash the aircraft. Our pilot try to give them some advises but hi don't lessened. OK with that but now the problem was that Bazu have no plane. The Americans give them one P51B - name "Sleepy Anne".
Bazu make a spectacular take of and make a impressive acrobatic demonstration. Note that it was for the first time in flight with a P51!!!
About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.
About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!
Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed. In aerial battles both speed and maneuverability are important. With speed, Me 109 can accept or not the dog-fight and dictate the fight conditions!
Now, about A6m-Zero. The American pilots was advise that too not accept a dog-fight with Japanese zero! In 1942, after the Midway U.S Army captured a A6M Zero in good conditions. They take the plane in California and make some test. In conclusion, at that time the U.S.A.A.F. have no plane capable to sustain a dog-fight with Japanese zero. So, the Americans H.Q. Make some directives and one of that directive say that the American fighter will not engage directly the Japanese zero, they will attack from Hy and they will open fire and going down - because zero was a very light aircraft, Japanese will can't going down to catch American aircraft. The official recommendation was that the Japanese zero will be hunted with "passing throw"!
In 1942 - 1943 it was a really "Zero Phobia"! In 1943, when F6F Hellcat was introduce in service, Japanese introduce in service the A6M5 52 models - Zero. That model was equal with F6F - Hellcat!
The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.
British, German, Romanian and Japanese.
I'm sorry but the American pilots was good because they are in large numbers. The supremacy was 20 / 1 in 1944.
In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!
In 1944, 23 august the Americans came here, in Romania to take the American prisoners buck. When they landing, our pilots was sidereted: American pilots don't now how to fly. They " ups a Daisy"!
Our very best pilot, Bazu Cantacuzino - 84 aerial victory - have make a historic flight in Italy, Fogia with his Me 109 G10 taking Colonel Gun with him, to take him there.
When Hi's arrive there, the colonel want to fly the Messerschmidt. Hi try but hi crash the aircraft. Our pilot try to give them some advises but hi don't lessened. OK with that but now the problem was that Bazu have no plane. The Americans give them one P51B - name "Sleepy Anne".
Bazu make a spectacular take of and make a impressive acrobatic demonstration. Note that it was for the first time in flight with a P51!!!
About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.
About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!
Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed. In aerial battles both speed and maneuverability are important. With speed, Me 109 can accept or not the dog-fight and dictate the fight conditions!
Now, about A6m-Zero. The American pilots was advise that too not accept a dog-fight with Japanese zero! In 1942, after the Midway U.S Army captured a A6M Zero in good conditions. They take the plane in California and make some test. In conclusion, at that time the U.S.A.A.F. have no plane capable to sustain a dog-fight with Japanese zero. So, the Americans H.Q. Make some directives and one of that directive say that the American fighter will not engage directly the Japanese zero, they will attack from Hy and they will open fire and going down - because zero was a very light aircraft, Japanese will can't going down to catch American aircraft. The official recommendation was that the Japanese zero will be hunted with "passing throw"!
In 1942 - 1943 it was a really "Zero Phobia"! In 1943, when F6F Hellcat was introduce in service, Japanese introduce in service the A6M5 52 models - Zero. That model was equal with F6F - Hellcat!
The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.
bogy said:
Your point being, Germans shot down Americans too even though the US had numerical supremacy, but that does not mean the American pilots were not good. American pilots recieved great training had aircraft just as good.
bogy said:
So are you saying that the Fw-190A was not good and the Fw-190D was was? Yes the Dora was better but the Anton was one of the best aircraft.
bogy said:
Please tell me you are not serious that the Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of the Spitfire. The Luftwaffe lost it for several reasons and none of them because of the Spitfire. They lost it because they changed there strategy from destroying the Luftwaffe to destroying London, big Mistake! The lost it because of the Hurricane not because of the Spitfire. The Spitfire was numerically strong eneogh to change the outcome of the BoB. Yes the Spitfire played a role in the BoB but even the British will tell you that the Hurricane was the real hero of the BoB. Thirdly they lost it because of the British Radar network. It allowed crews to stay on the ground and then be vectored to the Enemy.
bogy said:
Both the Spitfire and the Bf-109E were pretty equal in speed. The difference was the Bf-109E had bad low speed maneavuerabilty but at high speeds she would turn with the best of them.
bogy said:
Okay first of all the Americans did not win the war. The Allies won the war together. Each making there own very big contributions. The Americans were just as good at fighting than any other force out there!
evangilder
"Shooter"
There was also no model of Zero that was an equal to the Hellcat. Especially when it comes to the ability to sustain damage. The Zero did have the manueverability edge below 275 MPH, but above that, the zero does not have the capability to manuever. There is nothing wrong with the tactics used to battle the Zero, it was effective and it worked.
The U.S pilots were only fearful of the Zero because they knew nothing about it. It wasn't an equal of the F6F Hellcat, the F4F was enough to deal with a Zero. If you had two F4F Wildcats against four A6M Zero, the Wildcats using the 'thatch and weave' would come out on top almost everytime.
You cannot possibly state where the best pilots came from without taking into account the feeling of a nation and the state it was in. The U.S and Britain were free democractic nations with some thought for their troops lives and well-being, they didn't grind them into the ground. That is why the two major democracies don't seem to have high killing pilots. On top of that there were more Western Allied pilots, giving each their own share while the higher scoring aces weren't so far ahead.
Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union cared little about the lives of their own people, it was fight to the death or until you win. They were flying massive sortie numbers and they would often willingly ram other aircraft!
The U.S ground troops weren't very good, no but that didn't matter. The U.S knew perfectly well how to use what it had, a massive economy. It didn't bother spending time training it's troops to the abilities of the German soldiers (who were the best in World War 2), it used it's massive economic backing to perfection by the doctrine of 'fire supremecy'.
If any blocking situation was encountered massive artillery and air support could be brought down on the target to wipe it clean of enemy before the massive amounts of armour moved in. All German commanders knew that W.Allied artillery was vastly superior to their own by weight of numbers alone.
Admittedly in a lot of circumstances the W.Allied forces would have suffered less and moved on much quicker had they been more aggressive but overall the war was won with little loss to the W.Allies. They played the war well.
If you want to start going on about how poor the U.S troops were, try looking at the Romanian troops at Stalingrad...
The Allies won the war, not the U.S. It was a joint effort and without any one of the 'Big Three' the war could have turned out much different.
You cannot possibly state where the best pilots came from without taking into account the feeling of a nation and the state it was in. The U.S and Britain were free democractic nations with some thought for their troops lives and well-being, they didn't grind them into the ground. That is why the two major democracies don't seem to have high killing pilots. On top of that there were more Western Allied pilots, giving each their own share while the higher scoring aces weren't so far ahead.
Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union cared little about the lives of their own people, it was fight to the death or until you win. They were flying massive sortie numbers and they would often willingly ram other aircraft!
The U.S ground troops weren't very good, no but that didn't matter. The U.S knew perfectly well how to use what it had, a massive economy. It didn't bother spending time training it's troops to the abilities of the German soldiers (who were the best in World War 2), it used it's massive economic backing to perfection by the doctrine of 'fire supremecy'.
If any blocking situation was encountered massive artillery and air support could be brought down on the target to wipe it clean of enemy before the massive amounts of armour moved in. All German commanders knew that W.Allied artillery was vastly superior to their own by weight of numbers alone.
Admittedly in a lot of circumstances the W.Allied forces would have suffered less and moved on much quicker had they been more aggressive but overall the war was won with little loss to the W.Allies. They played the war well.
If you want to start going on about how poor the U.S troops were, try looking at the Romanian troops at Stalingrad...
The Allies won the war, not the U.S. It was a joint effort and without any one of the 'Big Three' the war could have turned out much different.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Agreed, plan_d. It was a group effort. The Americans didn't win the war. America was only part of the overall effort on behalf of ALL the allies that led to final victory.
Some people dont realize the contributions made by each country. Each had there own things to give and each what they were "experts" in. 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? Each made great contributions.
And on your comment Plan_D about the Romanian troops. I agree and besides who was it that switched sides as soon as the going got tough for them: US, England, or Romania. If I recall it was the Romanians that left the Axis once they saw that the Allies were going to win. Jumpin on the old band wagon!
And on your comment Plan_D about the Romanian troops. I agree and besides who was it that switched sides as soon as the going got tough for them: US, England, or Romania. If I recall it was the Romanians that left the Axis once they saw that the Allies were going to win. Jumpin on the old band wagon!
cheddar cheese
Major General
Italy done the same. Damn smart, them Italians 8)
You accuse Romania because they switched sides? Where was the American and Brit when Germans sold our country? Where was American and Brit when Germans make pact with soviet union and sold our Eastern territory? Why don't accuse Soviet Union because they switched sides? They were Allies with Germans and attack Finland, Poland and Romania and after that they were your Allies.
What do you now about Stalingrad? My grand father was there and sow everything! He sow the German soothing Romanian "Allies" when they try to retreat in trucks with German "Allies".
Yes I now that victory was a joint effort but I was talking about the Americans and about their fighting stile.
What do you now about Stalingrad? My grand father was there and sow everything! He sow the German soothing Romanian "Allies" when they try to retreat in trucks with German "Allies".
Yes I now that victory was a joint effort but I was talking about the Americans and about their fighting stile.
bogy said:
Okay now this is getting way way off topic. This is supposed to be about Japanese aviation here. I will stand on my soap box one more time though and then I am done and hopefully this can get back on topic.
bogy said:
My grandfather was at Stalingrad also. In fact he was wounded and captured there so I know quite a bit about it, actually!
bogy said:
There was nothing bad about the American fighting style, actually. They were trained very well and could fight against anyone. They may not have been the best soldiers in the war but they were just as good as anyone. Tell the boys who scaled Point du Hoc in Normandy or stormed the beaches there, tell the boys who fought at the Battle of the Bulge, tell the boys that fought in Iwo Jima or Guadal Canal that they were not good fighters.
There now I am finished and am getting off of my soap box.
I am sorry but I speak about fighters, not about infantry. About infantry, I now and I angry with that, American infantry was the best, and was, no doubt about that. They prove that in Normandy, they prove that in Iwo Jima, Guadalacanal, Okinawa, Tarawa, in Corea, in Vietnam, etc.
in fact I am a little bit filo American and i don't wanna be upset in this discussion. In fact this must be a friendly discussion, OK?
in fact I am a little bit filo American and i don't wanna be upset in this discussion. In fact this must be a friendly discussion, OK?
No one here is trying to upset you but you have to also respect other peoples ideas and thoughts also just like everyone else has to also. Maybe things came across wrong but know one here is trying to lash out at you or your country.
As a matter of fact things have to be taken with a grain of salt here and everyone has to be thick skinned, or things can get out hand quickly.
As a matter of fact things have to be taken with a grain of salt here and everyone has to be thick skinned, or things can get out hand quickly.
OK, I've got the idea. Let be friends and let's talk friendly. It's OK by me, I have nothing against American fighters but that's my opinion - they have fought very well in infantry, artillery, tanks, navy, marines but I considered that in air, there are fighters much better then Americans.
The problem was that ,no doubt, P51 was the best fighter in ww2. They have the best aircraft at that time, with strongest engines and armament.
I don't now if the Americans have a fighters like Molders or Hartman or Lipfert or Cantacuzino or Dobran or Serbanescu. No offense but I am not convince about that.
What do You think about Soviet Fighters? And about their aircraft?
The problem was that ,no doubt, P51 was the best fighter in ww2. They have the best aircraft at that time, with strongest engines and armament.
I don't now if the Americans have a fighters like Molders or Hartman or Lipfert or Cantacuzino or Dobran or Serbanescu. No offense but I am not convince about that.
What do You think about Soviet Fighters? And about their aircraft?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Bob Johnson (P-47 pilot) had the same kill rate as Molders. We had our aces like Bong and Mcguire.
By the way, I don't say that Fw 190 A was not good, I just say that Fw Dora 9 was the best. End I considered that Fw 190D9 was the best German fighter in ww2. I don't now why because Fw 190have a Junkers jumo engine and Fw190A have a BMW engine and I now that BMW engine was better then Junker Jumo.
Anyway, I have a beautiful kit machete of FW 190A4 at 1:48 in Fujimy - it is Heinz Barr's Fw 190A4.
Anyway, I have a beautiful kit machete of FW 190A4 at 1:48 in Fujimy - it is Heinz Barr's Fw 190A4.
"Bob Johnson (P-47 pilot) had the same kill rate as Molders. We had our aces like Bong and McGuire."
Yes Flyboy, I now that, Your country have good aces, you have Ira Kepford, Pappy Boigton, etc and I recognize that.
If I don't wrong, Mcguire have flight on F6F Hellcat name "Minsii" ? And Kepford on F4 U Corsair numbered 29 white.
Yes Flyboy, I now that, Your country have good aces, you have Ira Kepford, Pappy Boigton, etc and I recognize that.
If I don't wrong, Mcguire have flight on F6F Hellcat name "Minsii" ? And Kepford on F4 U Corsair numbered 29 white.
Bogy
That's Cmdr. David McCampbell who flew Grumman F6F Hellcat "Minsi" with 34 kills and Maj. Thomas McGuire flew Lockheed P-38 Lighting with 38 kills before he was KIA.
Yes, Lt. (jg) Ira "Ike" Kepford fly Vought F4U-1A Corsair with white 29 while he made 16 kills during the war.
That's Cmdr. David McCampbell who flew Grumman F6F Hellcat "Minsi" with 34 kills and Maj. Thomas McGuire flew Lockheed P-38 Lighting with 38 kills before he was KIA.
Yes, Lt. (jg) Ira "Ike" Kepford fly Vought F4U-1A Corsair with white 29 while he made 16 kills during the war.
