How good was Japanese aviation?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Best explination on this yet!
 
Im with Plan_D on this one. Sorry arras but the Zero was only feared at first because no one knew anything about it. They soon realized that above 275mph on the early models she was easily outclassed. As was stated by even the airframe was built like a coke can and the she did not have self sealing tanks. She would have been chewed apart by a Spitfire.

Also as was posted by Plan_D here, there are a lot of circumstances that are not posted on paper stats and therefor you can not just go off of speed and dive characteristics. The Spit was a much better aircraft. As a matter of fact the Zero was ouclassed by most aircraft past 1943. Why do you think the Hellcats and Wildcats had such better shoot down rates than the Zero. Now take an aircraft like the Spitfire which could outfly both of the hellcat and Wildcat.
 
You don't have to be sorry DAIG, it is just a discusion.

I gona stop here since I think opinions were writen alredy and there is no sense to prolongate this.

I think that Zero had showed its quality while shoting down Huricanes, Wildcats and P-40s (which was the best US fighter of the time) in numbers and it did that with overhelming superiority. If it was superior to them it would be at last equal to Spitfre if not better ..just my opinion.
 

How could you say that! The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!

Erik Shilling (AVG Pilot), "The P-40 was a hell of a lot better fighter than those who have never flow it think. If it had had the top speed of a 51 I would take it over any fighter the US had."

Jeff Ethell (Pilot, aviation author and historian), "After years of reading that the P-40 could not maneuver, particularly with a Zero, and that it had to make diving slash attacks to be effective, I had come to accept the general opinion that it was outclassed by almost everything else flying. Sitting in the cockpit, with the controls in my hands, having written a book about the aircraft and said all those things, the accepted history in my brain was wrestling with the seat of my pants. No question it did not have the top speed and high altitude performance to disengage targets at will, but it was certainly more maneuverable than other American fighters, particularly the P-51."

I'm not pushing the P-40 here but you can't argue with history! Yes you are entitled to your opinion but actual facts and documeted history show that the Zero got Mauled!
 
There weren't even that many Hurricanes shot down by the Zero - in fact, I reckon the kill ratio against Japanese planes would be in the Hurricane's ratio. Most the Hurricanes in 1941 and 1942 fell to mechanical failures and lack of spare parts more than enemy action.

From Bill Gunston's Classic Fighters -

"In all important respects the design of this carrier-based fighter of the Imperial Japanese Navy was ordinary to the point of being old-fashioned. It was, for example, almost identical in size, shape, weight, engineering detail design and performance to the British Gloster F.5/34 flown in December 1937, almost 18 months before the Japanese fighter."

"...it should have posed few problems to Allied pilots."

Bold added by me.
 
FLYBOYJ >>
The Wildcat had at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero! The Flying Tigers claim an 8 to 1 kill ratio!
Click to expand...
you should name your source ...I newer heard about Wildcat but kill ratio of Flying Tigers 8:1 was claimed against all Japanese aircraft, naval, army, bombers, fighters ..all. +it is kill ratio counted from war anals of F.T.s reality was something diferent as was shown by post was analisis of both sides losses. Real kill ratio was something around 1:1 - 1:2 against all.
Against Wildcat I dont know, but unles you gona post some reliable sources, I wont trust it ...Wildcat was solid strudy aircraft but worsth than P-40 and P-40 did quit bad against Zero. Batles between Zero and Wildcat I know about, such as those during Midway attack went bad for Wildcat.

I know that Wildcats serwed at some smaller US cariers at the end of war and may be they did well against Zero ...but by that time Japanese were in wery bad situation with wery green pilots so I think we can exclude those.

I'm not pushing the P-40 here but you can't argue with history! Yes you are entitled to your opinion but actual facts and documeted history show that the Zero got Mauled!
Click to expand...
...I wonder than, why so many alied pilots have lost they lifes and especialy, why aliens have lost control of skyes over whole pacific and asia theaters at the begining of war. What was shoting all those P-40 down? Were they all piloted by suicide pilots??? And dont forget that Japan had only 400 Zeros that time!
 

Sources - To name a few!

http://centurytel.net/midway/appendix/appendixfourteen_usvftac.html,
http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_record.html
http://staff.jccc.net/droberts/p40/finalp40.html

On another post it was shown how the F4F's performance improved from Coral Sea to Guadalcanal where it went from a 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the Japanese to a 4 to 1 in favor of the USN and USMC. Only 178 Wildcats were lost during the entire war!

And I don't know where your sources are from but you will find the ones I posed here and in other posts show that the Zero got beaten pretty badly through out the Pacific War

Here's what I posted in another post on the same subject -
At Coral Sea, the Zero had about a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the F4f. At Midway the F4F had a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero. At Guadalcanal it went to 2.5 to 1. See the links;

http://centurytel.net/midway/appendix/appendixfourteen_usvftac.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Aces/

Bottom line, only 178 F4Fs were lost in combat! Over 400 Zeros were destroyed by Wildcats, and that's very conservative!
 

I don't know where you're sources are from but you seem to believe that US fighter pilots were falling out of the skies at the beginning of WW2. In early 1942 USAAF P-39s and P-40s did have a rough time against the Japanese but that changed in late 42' whe the P-38 entered the pacific and then the mauling of the Zero began.

From Midway on the USN and USMC maintained a constant surperiortiy over the Japanese and that lasted until the end of the war. Here' s a USAAF site for reference:http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs11.htm

On Dec 7, 1941 the japanese had 400 zeros deployed, mainly model 21s. With in a year that number at least doubled. A total of 10,449 Zeros were built - 3,879 by Mitsubishi and 6,570 by Nakajima

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/A6M_dev.htm
 
Sorry arras, as FBJ has said you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong about the Zero being so much superior. The Zero was very overated in my opinion. It achieved its success based off of surprise and lack of knowledge by the allies. Once the Allies learned more about it and the surprise facter was gone it was open season on the Zero. Lets see here is the account of some of the Battles. On some of these I can not confirm the number of Zeros or Wildcats but the point is they were gettting slaughtered One Reason would be the Japs did not have great fighter strategy. The US used a team type strategy while the Japs relied on the individual. Also arras as you stated toward the end of the war the US was fighting Jap pilots that had no experience. This would not have happened had all the experienced Jap pilots not been shot down by allied fighters.

Battle of Midway

Japan

Carrier Aircraft Lost: 261
Mitsubishi A6M2, "Zero" Fighter

Aichi D3A1, "Val" Carrier Bomber

Nakajima B5N2, "Kate" Carrier Attack Plane
Lost in Midway Air Strike: 6
Lost in Combat Air Patrol: 12
Lost in Attacks Against U.S. Carriers: 24
Lost with Carriers when They Sunk: 219

TOTAL: 261

Fighters Being Ferried Lost: 21
Seaplanes Lost: 10

TOTAL: 31

TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 292

USA

Carrier Aircraft Lost: 109
Grumman F4F-3/-4, "Wildcat" Fighter

Douglas SBD-2/-3, "Dauntless" Dive Bomber

Douglas TBD-1, "Devastator" Torpedo Bomber
Shore Based Aircraft Lost:
Marine: 28
Douglas SBD-2, "Dauntless" Dive Bomber

Vought SB2U-3, "Vindicator" Dive Bomber

Grumman F4F-3, "Wildcat" Fighter

Brewster F2A-3, "Buffalo" Fighter
Navy: 6
Grumman TBF-1, "Avenger" Torpedo Bomber

Consolidated PBY-5/-5A, "Catalina" Search and Rescue Plane
Army: 2 Martin B-26, "Marauder" Bomber

TOTAL AIRCRAFT LOST: 145

Battle of Eastern Solomans

Japan

75 aircraft lost

USA

25 aircraft lost

Sometime later radar discovered many planes inbound. These were Ryugo's 15 Zero's and 6 Vals. VMF-223 intercepted them and shot down 21 attackers.
http://www.everblue.net/1942/

Lets see that says 15 Zeros's and 6 Vals. 15 + 6=21 and 21 got shot down thats 15 Zeros right there.

Batte of Santa Cruz

Japan

97 aircraft lost

USA

81 aircraft lost
 
Yeap I think most stats would show that the Zero was not as good in actual combat as it says on paper. The aircraft was fast and nimble at first but she was so underarmored that throwing a rock at it could take it out.
 
At first she was competative in speed and such not but this all soon was surpassed by allied aircraft that were faster, more nimble and were better armoured while having more armament.
 
Some very good film stills depicting Ki-45s attacking a B-29s:



A couple of B-29 damaged, the upper aircraft had lost his Nº1 engine and is going down.



A nakajima Ki-45 touched by the defensive gunfire.

 
The top shot is really good. We tend to forget (well I do) just how big the B29 was for its time and that shows it. Certainly I don't think that I would have fancied going up against them in a lightly armed Ki 45
 
My impression of the Pacific fighters is a simplistic one.

It's like cars. Everybody knows the name Ferrari, sure they're fast. They must be the fastest. But wait, that Lamborghini, now with looks like that it's gotta be the fastest. And Porsches, we all know that name, surely they're just about the fastest too.
But then you take a look at the engineering characteristics more deeply and come away with a totally different method of appraisal. Ferrari's a Le Mans race car put on the road, Lambo's have very few expenses spared as a supercar in the true sense and names like McLaren and Vector have the fastest road-going one-offs at the dry lake tests, but get butt-kicked on the track. But then we get into what kind of track was involved...

The Zero was a fantastic use of resources. Nobody knew how fragile and underpowered it really was, everybody thought it had awesome manoeuvrability, speed and the heavy armament to get the job done.
Then one got finally captured and tested with disappointing yet cheerful results.
In one sense, the US had pulled out all stops on competing with a rumour. At a time when the USN thought the F4F was barely keeping up it was actually close to outclassing the nimble but easily downed Zero, which also enjoyed a relative lack of development in the same given time frame.
The F6F was considered to totally outclass all later Zero variants (I think the F4U just plain reinvented the rules), which had finally become armoured however couldn't keep up with the extra weight in horsepower improvement. The Japanese were unprepared to sacrifice range for combat development with the Zero. It was however still heavily armed, with twin 20mm cannon on top of its cowling machine guns.

Probably the greatest limiting factor of all Pacific fighters was range requirement. It was the single most important engineering specification. Considering this, the performance of both Japanese and US fighters in the Pacific was precisely as awesome as any in the European theatre. In my opinion.

Perhaps this was where the P-51D gained its, to my mind slightly overblown reputation. Most of its design characteristics appear to me, to be involved with straight line drag and range, its vulnerabilities were plain and not enjoyed by other, shorter ranged fighters to the quite same degree. But then they couldn't do what it could do either.
And its strengths were obvious, a teensy-weensy plane with a monstrous engine, still a winning fighter combination since the invention of the Bf 109.

The Ki-84 looks to me like a heavy fighter, designed to fill the kind of niche you might find a Tempest or a Thunderbolt at. I don't really think the Japanese had quite the technological edge they might've liked.
I mean of course it "outperformed all other fighter types used in the war."
You can find that precise statement, depending on your sources, for the following aircraft:
Yak 3
La 7
Hawker Tempest
Supermarine Spitfire MkXIV
P47D Thunderbolt
F4U Corsair
Fw 190D-9
Bf 109K

Truth is even the Me262 can't claim such a title due to a Mr Whittle in England. Sorry, nobody wins in this one.
 
What the hell was all that about?

So, in short, you're sitting on the fence because you don't know. And Chennault knew about the Zero, the "Thatch and Weave" was developed by the AVG - they knew how to the defeat the Zero in P-40s. The USN just didn't listen.
 

Never seen it stated as the 'Thatch and Weave' before.

When did the AVG meet Zeros?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
41K
Think Tanker
Japanese built airfields
Replies
2
Views
298
aidenmac16
How good was the soviet air force?
32 33 34
Replies
664
Views
48K
Dimlee
P-51D vs F/G vs H: how good was good enough/how good was actually great?
Replies
18
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register