How was the Japanese evaluation of the P-40?

[Shortround6]

A most interesting document. Many thanks.

I would note that there are a number of prototypes included and at least one never built and a few aircraft are missing (F4U and F6F ?)
Very thorough for a war time list however.

 

[Shinpachi]

Thank you very much for your kind advice, Shortround6, which encouraged me for more research.
The F4U and the F6F were introduced to the Japanese aviation enthusiasts in 1944.

 

[Shinpachi]

Did he leave any records or accounts of his experiences?

I'm searching for it but no clue at the moment.

 

[Jenisch]

Wow Shinpachi, thank you very much!

I'm fascinating by understanding why mistakes were made (or at least what one belives could be mistakes) in aircraft development. And one of the things that I really would like to understand about the Japanese aircraft industry during the war is why it took so long for the airframes of planes like the Ki-43 and the Zero to receive more powerful engines (in the case of the Zero, the A6M8 specially, did not even entered in production AFAIK). As for the Ki-43, I have read the model 3 could reach a maximum speed of 358mph in a version Tachikawa started to produce in 1944. This would be adequate for 1942, but not for 1944. If it's power curve was comparable to a P-40E in different altitudes, and it could have been avaliable earlier, than the IJA would have had a plane that would be able to easily hunt a 1942 P-40 in level flight. Something I belive it wasn't so simple with the first model of the Type 1 fighter, which I guess it was slower than contemporary British Hurricane.

Certainly one must not underestimate the capabilities of the design teams and the military. They must have had their reasons to not put those engines, even if mistakes were commited in the process. And understanding those reasons in a perspective that really makes sense is what matters in the study of history.

 

[GrauGeist]

JG 10x were school units - were they really used in combat ?

Yes, they did.
A good example would be the intercept of 85 B-17s on 4 April 1943 when Maj. Oesau led both I/JG2 and the operational staff of JG105 into the battle near Rouen.

Thank you very much for your kind advice, Shortround6, which encouraged me for more research.
The F4U and the F6F were introduced to the Japanese aviation enthusiasts in 1944.

Fantastic information, Shinpachi!

I also find it interesting that those lists show the B-19 but not the B-18. Also shown on the list is the XF5F and F7F - and I sure would be interested to see what the Japanese had written down for the P-59!

 

[Shortround6]

I also find it interesting that those lists show the B-19 but not the B-18. Also shown on the list is the XF5F and F7F - and I sure would be interested to see what the Japanese had written down for the P-59!

B-18A and B-23 are on the list, just separated by a bunch of A-17 variants from the B-19.

 

[GrauGeist]

I saw the B-23, which is interesting, because the few B-23 types that were produced, were used to patrol the west coast and never saw combat, while the B-18A was actually in combat areas, like the Philippines and at Pearl Harbor.

Many of the B-18s in the Philippines were caught on the ground (along with several B-10 types, too) and you would think that the Japanese would have had those included on the list by designation, just like the XF5F was.

There is even a photo of a B-10 in Japanese markings, but I suspect that was a Dutch export version that was captured.

 

[fubar57]

Great find Shinpachi. Wasn't aware there were that many captured aircraft. I noticed the the Skyrocket as well. Spy info?

 

[Shinpachi]

I also find it interesting that those lists show the B-19 but not the B-18. Also shown on the list is the XF5F and F7F - and I sure would be interested to see what the Japanese had written down for the P-59!

I'm glad you are interested, Dave.
The list says with the diagrams like these.

B-19 Douglas

XF5F-1 Grumman (Skyrocket)

F7F Grumman (Tomcat)

P-59 Bell (Airacomet)

 

[GrauGeist]

WoW, Shinpachi!

Look at that...the Japanese had pretty good intelligence gathering, it appears.

 

[Shinpachi]

Wow Shinpachi, thank you very much!

I'm fascinating by understanding why mistakes were made (or at least what one belives could be mistakes) in aircraft development. And one of the things that I really would like to understand about the Japanese aircraft industry during the war is why it took so long for the airframes of planes like the Ki-43 and the Zero to receive more powerful engines (in the case of the Zero, the A6M8 specially, did not even entered in production AFAIK). As for the Ki-43, I have read the model 3 could reach a maximum speed of 358mph in a version Tachikawa started to produce in 1944. This would be adequate for 1942, but not for 1944. If it's power curve was comparable to a P-40E in different altitudes, and it could have been avaliable earlier, than the IJA would have had a plane that would be able to easily hunt a 1942 P-40 in level flight. Something I belive it wasn't so simple with the first model of the Type 1 fighter, which I guess it was slower than contemporary British Hurricane.

Certainly one must not underestimate the capabilities of the design teams and the military. They must have had their reasons to not put those engines, even if mistakes were commited in the process. And understanding those reasons in a perspective that really makes sense is what matters in the study of history.

No mistake, no defeat, Jenisch

Japanese mistakes were discussed a lot of times repeatedly in this forum.
If I may summarize,

1. Japanese did not notice the effectiveness of the hit-and-run tactics until it got popular in the world.
2. They did not understand the necessity of the armors as well as the importance of airmen's lives.
3. The navy and the army were not cooperative with the aircraft development each other and this caused fatal delay and inefficiency in the factory.
4. and many more.

I personally think, however, the basic mistake for the Japanese was that they had been so hard to imitate the western advanced technologies since 1868 that they had forgot to think what would be the best and unique for them by themselves. Recently I guess that Japanese should have promoted their unique bomb balloons more seriously and applied the psychological warfare more positively as they did in the Dutch Indochina to occupy all area with the minimum troops. Just my guess.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Fu Go project did have it's merits and could have really been an effective weapon, but the Japanese didn't fully grasp how to use them to full effect.
Had they focused on incendiary bombs during the dry summer months and then high explosives during the winter months, the results may have been more in their favor.

 

[Shinpachi]

You are a strategist by nature, Dave

 

[David Jones]

Re: Shinpachi's post of Japanese evaluation of Allied aircraft, Where is this available and is there an English translation available as well?

 

[Shinpachi]

Direct links to the archive.

敵機解剖 : 大東亜戦・鹵獲・撃墜撃破飛行機写真集
昭和18
朝日新聞社

Analysis of Enemy Planes - Captured and destroyed aircraft pictures in the Great East Asian War
published by Asahi Shinbunsya in 1943
国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション - 敵機解剖 : 大東亜戦・鹵獲・撃墜撃破飛行機写真集


敵機一覧
昭和19年版
読売新聞社

List of Enemy Planes
published by Yomiuri Shinbunsya in 1944
国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション - 敵機一覧. 昭和19年版


No English translation is available but the headline of the list I posted in #20 can be read like this.

 

[Micdrow]

Though I can't read Japanese this book that I have it does have a wide variety of pictures of different countries aircraft captured by the Japanese.

Very interesting information there Shinpachi. Many thanks.

 

[Jenisch]

They give a 400 mph top speed to the P-39, while the P-40 only has 327. This is strange. Are those estimates?

 

[buffnut453]

They give a 400 mph top speed to the P-39, while the P-40 only has 327. This is strange. Are those estimates?

Could be estimates or they could be derived from published sources (eg Janes All The World's Aircraft). It would be interesting to compare these numbers with Janes to see if there's any correlation.

 

[buffnut453]

Though I can't read Japanese this book that I have it does have a wide variety of pictures of different countries aircraft captured by the Japanese.

Very interesting information there Shinpachi. Many thanks.

View attachment 361783

That's the book I have, too. I do wish it would be republished in English because it has some fantastic photos. I'd also prefer it to be in larger format and printed on better quality paper so the photos were clearer...but that's just me being greedy.

 

[buffnut453]

Where there is a will, there is a way.
Performance list of the U.S. aircraft published in 1943.

View attachment 361354 View attachment 361355 View attachment 361356 View attachment 361357

Thanks Shinpachi. I have those performance figures. What I'm looking for is a tactical comparison. I've seen a diagram depicting a Buffalo apparently doing a loop (or perhaps a steep-banked turn) with a Ki-43 on the inside gaining a firing solution. I'd really like to understand what that diagram is showing and any related comments regarding combat tactics that Japanese pilots derived from the evaluations of captured Allied aircraft.