Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The bottom line is that it appears to me that the Japanese Empire reached its zenith on the backs of only about 200 zero fighters. Are there units that I'm missing?
The first Ki-43 units of the IJAAF were just starting to be deployed as of December 1941. I think there was one group in Burma, and I don't know of any others. Of course, they had lots of KI-27 "Nate" (fixed-gear) fighters. What strikes me overall is that Japan started an offensive war against the US, Great Britain and the Netherlands, with a lot fewer "modern" fighters than the defenders.
The first Ki-43 units of the IJAAF were just starting to be deployed as of December 1941. I think there was one group in Burma, and I don't know of any others. Of course, they had lots of KI-27 "Nate" (fixed-gear) fighters. What strikes me overall is that Japan started an offensive war against the US, Great Britain and the Netherlands, with a lot fewer "modern" fighters than the defenders.
I may be corrected by the WW2 Europhiles here but it seems to me there is no parallel in the ETO to the dominance of the A6M in the PTO during the first 5 months of the war.
The 59th and 64th Sentai were both equipped with Ki-43s at the start of Japan's war against the Western powers. The balance of fighters during the Philippines campaign was pretty even. In Malaya, the Japanese fighters outnumbered the RAF. In which campaign did the Japanese have "a lot fewer" fighters than the defenders (other than Pearl Harbor)? It's also worth bearing in mind that an attacking force can concentrate to deliver effect at specific locations whereas a defending fighter force must, by its nature, be somewhat dispersed. Lack of reliable early warning/radar simply makes the dispersion problem worse and greatly reduces the odds that the defenders will successfully engage the attackers.
Three or four American aircraft carriers attacking the Japanese home islands in April 1942 probably could have had their way for several days.
I think you mean the IJA Ki-27. Somehow that 275 mph fighter aircraft managed to achieve air superiority over the Philippines, Malaya and East Indies.
I'm not doubting that but pray tell where is that from? I hope not some 16-year-old posting to Wikipedia.Japanese Navy Carrier Aircraft Order of Battle
December 7 1941
AKAGI
B5N2 = 27
D3A1 = 18
A6M2 = 27
KAGA
B5N2 = 27
D3A1 = 27
A6M2 = 27
SORYU
B5N2 = 18
D3A1 = 18
A6M2 = 27
HIRYU
B5N2 = 18
D3A1 = 18
A6M2 = 24
SHOKAKU
B5N2 = 27
D3A1 = 27
A6M2 = 15
ZUIKAKU
B5N2 = 27
D3A1 = 27
A6M2 = 15
In a dogfight the Zeroes ruled due to the fact that they could turn inside anything flying at that time. The Hellcats picked them off like clay pigeons because they didn't have to "mix it up" with the Zeroes like that, effectively nullifying the Zeroes' advantage.I couldn't agree with you more. I think the A6M's greatest failing is that it was TOO good in 1941. The Japanese war planners figured the A6M would be dominant and that even a relative few would enable great conquests. If they wouldn't have had an aircraft with the zero's capabilities, perhaps they would never have launched an offensive war.
In contrast I think the US Navy planners underestimated the virtues of their first great carrier-based air superiority fighter, the F6F Hellcat. The Hellcat was so dominant that they could have gone immediately from the Marianas to Iwo Jima then Okinawa, cutting out the Philippines campaign entirely.