Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

J2M "Jack" vs. Ki-44 "Tojo": Which was better

  • J2M "Jack"

    Votes: 22 81.5%

  • Ki-44 "Tojo"

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Total voters
    27

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

PAT303 said:
Which is why I have never rated it, Saburō Sakai is quoted as saying ''no one takes an aerobatics plane to war" when describing the A6M, your response mirrors that.
Click to expand...

The A6M was the best carrier fighter in the world in 1941 - 1942, and SHOULD be rated as such. It didn't start to be eclipsed until the Hellcat and Corsair got there. The P-38 was better if you stayed fast, but was not a dogfighter like the A6M.

Writing off the A6M as "no good" is just plain overlooking the fact that it was the best carrier-based fighter until it got eclipsed by the F6F / F4U, etc. and was dangerous when handled by an expert pilot up through the end of the war. By that time, the "expert pilots" weren't exactly numerous, but they were around. Nobody who was there took a Zero lightly, at least according to those pilots flying the planes in WWII. I've heard over 100 speak, and none of them thought the Zero was an "easy target" unless you got it by ambush.

ANY plane is an easy target when it doesn't know there's a fight on.
 
Last edited:
The CAP Zeros being down low and scattered at Midway after trying to intercept the several waves of attacks, including Torpedo bombers is not postwar propaganda, it was fact.

The repeated attacks from Midway, plus the attacks coming from the US Carriers had the Japanese carriers in disarray due to defensive maneuvers, plus the attacks for the most part, were at low to moderate altitudes.
When the SBDs arrived, they were at a much higher altitude and the timing of their arrival put the Japanese fleet's CAP at a disadvantage both because they had been repeatedly pulled down low and were running low on fuel and ammunition because of that.

*IF* IJN CAP doctrine been layed out better, using coordinated zones, rotations, and directed groups, the SBDs may not have delivered such a hard blow to their fleet due to interception.
 
GregP said:
The A6M was the bet carrier fighter in the world in 1941 - 1942, and SHOULD be rated as such.
Click to expand...
It was good because everything else was rubbish, the Wildcat/Martlet had good protection, a good radio and tough, once the pilots got over the "Zero Myth" it started to show it's worth but saying you are right, with the arrival of the Hellcat the USN finally had the plane and tactics to end A6M's career.
 
GrauGeist said:
*IF* IJN CAP doctrine been layed out better, using coordinated zones, rotations, and directed groups, the SBDs may not have delivered such a hard blow to their fleet due to interception.
Click to expand...
If the Japanese had better radio's, plotting tables and controllers, better AA defence instead of those 25mm things, practised repelling realistic attacks from different directions and heights plus all the things you mentioned they would have maybe done better, but the constant attacks by every type of plane the US had, single engined, twin engined even four engined B17's, plus the marauder?, that tried to Kumakazi one of the carriers seriously rattled the IJN commanders. There was a boatload of courage shown by the US pilots that day not to mention the commanders that showed initiative by going all out putting everything up that day
 
Sorry to butt in. There is a tendency to among aviation enthusiasts to give too much credit to, or not enough credit to, the Zero. It has its weaknesses, which were common to aircraft of the era. But it also had its strengths. Chief among its superlative characteristics were its weight.

The Zero had some extremely advanced technologies packed into it. For example, aluminum 7075 ("extra super duralumin") and its wing being built integral with the fuselage were all examples of unusual technologies being deployed to lighten the Zero.

The truth was, the Allies didn't have the technology to build an aircraft as light as the Zero. But that was probably by choice as lighter aircraft were nice but nothing was better than reliable, performant, heavily armed, and well protected aircraft in abundance.
 
Last edited:

It doesn't matter why it was so good. For a couple to 3 years, it was the best, regardless of the reason. Acknowledging that should not be difficult since it is true.

And the arrival of the Hellcats wasn't nearly as responsible for the Hellcat's success as was the seasoning of the Hellcat pilots, turning them into veterans who could take advantage of the Hellcat's qualities in battle. Many, in fact likely most, were seasoned flying Wildcats and were definitely ready when the Hellcat performance was available to them.
 
Last edited:
By the time the F6F shows up, late 1943, the decline in Japanese pilot quality was pronounced. Also, Hellcats never flew where they did not enjoy overwhelming superiority in numbers.
 
AerialTorpedoDude69 said:
The truth was, the Allies didn't have the technology to built an aircraft as light as the Zero
Click to expand...
Really?, so the likes of Tank, Mitchel, Smith, Shenstone, Messerschmitt had no idea on aircraft construction?. When the Japanese had their
("extra super duralumin") RR had made their R engine with over 2000hp and Whittle had his jet.
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
Really?, so the likes of Tank, Mitchel, Smith, Shenstone, Messerschmitt had no idea on aircraft construction?. When the Japanese had their
("extra super duralumin") RR had made their R engine with over 2000hp and Whittle had his jet.
Click to expand...
There is a multi-quote feature that can allow you to respond to multiple people in one comment, without having to make multiple separate replies.

For example, when you are reading through the comments, you can left-click on the +Quote button beneath each comment. Then, when you are responding, you can left-click on "Insert quotes... in order to selectively choose each quote that you'd like to respond to. When you're finished, each of those who you've responded to will be notified of your comment.

But anyway, getting back to your comment, a better way to describe what I'm talking about is investment. In other words, technology is more related to what Japanese leaders chose to throw money at. And for whatever reason, they chose to focus on lighter aircraft, which entailed developing lighter alloys and construction methods. The Allies didn't focus on lighter aircraft, they chose to make their aircraft more powerful, reliable, and mass producible.
 
The elimination of experienced IJN pilots may have been facilitated by a lack of info on the newer USN aircraft and their capabilities distributed to combat units. For example, in the video series "Dogfights", a U.S. naval aviator in his new F6F relates his combat with an experienced IJN pilot who began a vertical climb to to evade what he thought was a standard "Grumman" not realising the F6F was not the familiar F4F which he usually easily out climbed.
 
The Zero for it's day, was one of the best fighters in the world but got quickly eclipsed. With that said...

Tell us more about this "extremely advanced technologies packed into it????" Did it offer any breakthroughs in propulsion technologies? Were manufacturing process so advanced it was able to be produced quicker then some of it's contemporaries? Did it carry advanced avionics, radios or ergonomics that enhanced crew performance or survivability?

7075 was developed by the Japanese, a great breakthrough in the world of metallurgy with aviation application, but it wasn't a "silver bullet." There were many similar alloys known to manufacturers that could have been used as a 7075 substitute (magnesium for one but not good for corrosion purposes) if required. Western metallurgists were working on similar alloys in the 7000 series during the 1930s (which meant a combination of Zinc, Magnesium and Copper alloyed with minimal silicon and other impurities), the Japanese were the first to get it "producible." The integral wing was well known and was actually a detriment in the field when you had one wing damaged beyond limits. I've been around restored Zeros and while they had some very clever manufacturing and operational characterizes, the Zero was no wild break through in aviation technology.

The allies "could have and would have" easily constructed an aircraft as alight as the Zero but if you explore what the was being required in western design by those holding the checkbooks, the trend was to go into the opposite direction. Some manufacturers did take up the light weight direction. The rest was history.







photos via internet
 
Let's not forget that the "lightness" of early Japanese aircraft was something of a necessity given the relative low horsepower engines available to them at the time. The original version (A6M1) had a 780 hp engine. Even the A6M2 with the Sakae still had a sub 1000 hp engine. The original specs stated that manuverability will equal the A5M and to achieve that with the engine used the aircraft had to be made as light as possible.
 
Thanks for the great comment.
So your examples prove my point. The ultralights, like the CW-21, XP-77, and the C.714 all had empty weights close to (or more than) what the A6M2 Zero weighed, despite haing half the horsepower, being less well armed, having shorter range, etc... because the Allies didn't have the alloys or construction techniques neccessary to build ultra light aircraft. The Italians had the SAI 403 though, although that aircraft's data is not reliable and the horsepower rating is possibly specious for the Delta aircooled. (It's still an amazing aircraft.)

Also, it's true that the Japanese were the first to mass produce 7075. But a little known fact is that Alcoa wasn't able to mass produce it until they had reverse engineered a sample of the metal from a captured Japanese aircraft. Synthesis took place in 1943. Mass production of aircraft-grade metal didn't take place until 1945.

A magic bullet? You might say it was in that it was a breakthrough in materials science. Materials science is generally the hardest area in which to make breakthroughs. But because the Japanese lacked an effective science sharing infrastructure, their breakthroughs generally did not spillover into other industries. So tech like MAD,Yagi radar, etc... kind of never were pursued in the way that they should have been. Japanese alloy technology was never used in the way that it should have been either.

EDIT: Getting back to the main subject, I don't know whether the Tojo or Jack used 7075 in their construction. My understanding is that 7075 was mass manufactured in such quantities that it was in all Japanese aircraft, which would explain why most Japanese aircraft had better power to weight ratios than their contemporaries. (So, yes, a kind of magic bullet, shot from a flimsy gun .)
 
Last edited:

We can compare the Spitfire I with A6M2. Fully loaded, the former weighted 300 kg more, a good deal of it being that Merlin III was heavier than the Sakae 12 by 110-120 kg, and because of the presence of the liquid cooling system (another 150-200 kg?). Stick the Sakae on the Spitfire I istead of the Merlin it's ancilliaries and now it weights ~2350 kg instead of 2640 kg (5820 lbs) - between the A6M2a (2338 kg) and A6M2b (2421 kg).
(figures for the Zeros are without the drop tank, source is the Shinpachi's translation)

SAI 403 was good for 575 km/h - see here.
 
And regardless - this would not have been a game changer. There were plenty of other alloys that were used successfully in aircraft that dominated the Zero so it goes back to the fact that the Zero, although a great performer at the start of the Pacific War was not some leading edge design. It was quickly surpassed in performance and became quickly obsolete.

Errr, no, not even from a flimsy gun. 7075 offered advantages but wasn't the only reason why "most Japanese aircraft had better power to weight ratios than their contemporaries." The design of structure and weight saving design methods (stamped parts, milling some structural components, lightening holes in structure, minimal structural members to achieve maximum G loading, etc.) were part of the equation that helped achieve light weight but effected strength and durability. I can tell you at the end of the day 7075 was not much lighter than 6061 and depending on the application, 6061 was the better material. Bottom line you weren't saving that much weight by using 7075!

So your comment "the Allies didn't have the alloys or construction techniques necessary to build ultra light aircraft" is simply not true. The fact that 7075 was not available to the allies is irrelevant. There were plenty of allied designers who "could have" easily gone into a lightweight design concept but were not directed that way due to the mandate from their customers.

Lastly, the Zero, like many other Japanese combat aircraft of the period had terrible interchangeability characteristics. I think this included the Tojo and Jack.

Here a comparison of 7075 to 6061 that goes into laymen's explanations

6061 Aluminum vs. 7075 Aluminum – Differences in Properties, Strength and Uses

This article presents a brief comparison of the properties, strength, and applications between 6061 and 7075 aluminum.
www.thomasnet.com
 
Greg Boeser said:
By the time the F6F shows up, late 1943, the decline in Japanese pilot quality was pronounced. Also, Hellcats never flew where they did not enjoy overwhelming superiority in numbers.
Click to expand...

Not too sure about that, Greg. Carriers didn't carry all that many aircraft, and unless it was a major battle, airplanes that ran into each other over open ocean were most like 4 vs 4, 4 vs 8, or 8 vs 8, all flying from carriers. If one side or the other came from a ground base, there might be more on one side. Most often it was 4 vs 4 out over water. The decline in Japanese pilots wasn't nearly as bad in late 1943 as it would be a year later in late 1944, still with 8 months left to fight.

Add to that the fact that only 2.5% of all WWII combat sorties were flown in Pacific Ocean Areas, and you have very few engagements relative to other areas. The only areas qualifying as reportable "theaters of operation" with fewer combat sorties were Alaska (0.3%) and the stand-alone 20th AF (1.6%) B-29s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
513
eagledad
E
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
1
Views
228
nuuumannn
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register