Jack vs. Tojo - Which was better? Why?

[Reluctant Poster]

Maybe they don't get the credit because they didn't have a wildly-successful aerial torpedo attack that took a country out of the war for quite awhile. The Taranto attack in 1940 was pretty well done by Swordfish, true, but the Italian fleet wasn't exactly a huge threat to the UK as the U.S. fleet was seen by Japan. Prior to WWII, the U.S.A. embargoed most raw materials from Japan and we were seen as a threat to Japanese national survival that had to be addressed. The Italians could have made life a bit difficult for the UK, had they chosen to do so, but they weren't a serious threat to national survival of the British Isles.

Still, you hit the nail on the head there, Shortround, the British got it right when they needed to get it right, and also came up with angled flight decks for carriers. They first demonstrated the steam catapult on the HMS Perseus in 1950, with the USS Hancock being the first commissioned carrier to be fitted with the system in 1954. All in all, the Brits have been very much in the forefront of development in many technologies and military advances. I'm glad we're allies!

A large part of the reason that the Japanese were wildly successful is that they attacked an enemy that didn't know there was a war, a major advantage the British didn't have. Pearl Habor would have been very different against a reasonably alert enemy. The other thing to point out was that Taranto was at night. No other navy or air force in the world had the skill to accomplish what the RN did.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

A large part of the reason that the Japanese were wildly successful is that they attacked an enemy that didn't know there was a war, a major advantage the British didn't have. Pearl Habor would have been very different against a reasonably alert enemy. The other thing to point out was that Taranto was at night. No other navy or air force in the world had the skill to accomplish what the RN did.

I have to disagree. The US high command weren't fools. They fully expected a war.

To be fair, in 1941 almost everyone on the planet knew war between Japan and the US was imminent, but the expected attack was in the Philippines, not Hawaii. The US even had early warning that an attack was happening but chose to ignore it.

However, even when the US was expecting an attack, thanks to MacArthur, they were not able to adequately defend against the Japanese air raids. MacArthur's micromanagement and poor leadership methods lead to a command chain that was in disarray. They had ignored the radar reports of incoming Japanese strikes and then lost almost all of their air force on the ground. Had MacArthur not been in charge, it's likely they would have held the Philippines for much longer. Perhaps they may have prevented the brutal Japanese occupation? They did have hundreds of aircraft and a numerically larger ground force than the Japanese had.

EDIT: Getting back to the original discussion: Jack vs. Tojo, I did some more reading and the Zero's designer explained why the Japanese favored light-engined aircraft: they were cheaper. There's one big consideration that we haven't been taking into account in this discussion. The Tojo was less expensive to manufacture and develop, compared to the Raiden, which explains the production differences. Based on the evidence, I've got to say that the Tojo's ease of construction (which was incorporated into the Frank) and cheap maintenance is likely what made it a better choice for mass production compared to the Jack. The Jack was just too advanced and too costly to be a reliable field interceptor.

 

[GrauGeist]

They did have hundreds of aircraft

The FEAF had aircraft, yes.
But how effective against modern Japanese aircraft flown by combat experienced pilots would they be?

This is what the FEAF have in hand on 7 December:
B-17C - 6
B-17D - 29
B-18 - 15

P-26A - 38
P-35A - 38
P-40B/E - 178

O-46A - 2
O-49 - 3
O-52 - 11

Of these "hundreds", quite a few were on the edge of being obsolete and the pilots would have far more determination than experience.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The US even had early warning that an attack was happening but chose to ignore it.

Not only did the American high command have warning signs, they actually issued a war-warning themselves:


On November 27th, after delivery of the State Department note of the 26th, but before receipt of the intercepted communications showing the reaction of the Japanese Government, the "war warning" was sent by the Chief of Naval Operations to CinCPac and CincAF. It read:

"This dispatch is to be considered a war warning x negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days x The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of naval task forces indicate an amphibious expedition against either the Philippines (printed in ink, "Thai") or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo x Execute an appropriate defensive deployment preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 x Inform district and Army authorities x A similar warning is being sent by War Department x Spenavo inform British x Continental districts Guam Samoa directed take appropriate measures against sabotage"

XVII. THE WAR WARNING OF NOVEMBER 27th

The surprise at Pearl was not that war had broken out, but that it had broken out at Pearl. Otherwise, the American leadership knew that the shit was about to hit the fan.

 

[tomo pauk]

EDIT: Getting back to the original discussion: Jack vs. Tojo, I did some more reading and the Zero's designer explained why the Japanese favored light-engined aircraft: they were cheaper. There's one big consideration that we haven't been taking into account in this discussion. The Tojo was less expensive to manufacture and develop, compared to the Raiden, which explains the production differences. Based on the evidence, I've got to say that the Tojo's ease of construction (which was incorporated into the Frank) and cheap maintenance is likely what made it a better choice for mass production compared to the Jack. The Jack was just too advanced and too costly to be a reliable field interceptor.

There are at least two examples of Japanese going against the 'let's buy cheaper stuff'.
1st is the Ki-45, a 2-engined fighter that managed to combine shortcomings of a 2-engined fighters (much more expensive than 1-engined type, uses double the number of engines than an 1-engined type, it takes longer to make required numbers, it uses much more fuel, big size is giveaway to the enemy) with shortcomings of IJA's 1-engined fighters (indifferent performance, lack of really heavy firepower).
2nd is the Ki-84, that used engine more expensive to make than what 14 cylinder engines of the day cost.

There was a lots of money squandered on aircraft that were supposed to be made in hundreds, too.

A good deal of Jack's problems were due to the choice of complicated powerplant, going simpler would've cost a few mph while also making the fighter more readily available, more reliable and lighter.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

There are at least two examples of Japanese going against the 'let's buy cheaper stuff'.
1st is the Ki-45, a 2-engined fighter that managed to combine shortcomings of a 2-engined fighters (much more expensive than 1-engined type, uses double the number of engines than an 1-engined type, it takes longer to make required numbers, it uses much more fuel, big size is giveaway to the enemy) with shortcomings of IJA's 1-engined fighters (indifferent performance, lack of really heavy firepower).
2nd is the Ki-84, that used engine more expensive to make than what 14 cylinder engines of the day cost.

There was a lots of money squandered on aircraft that were supposed to be made in hundreds, too.

A good deal of Jack's problems were due to the choice of complicated powerplant, going simpler would've cost a few mph while also making the fighter more readily available, more reliable and lighter.

Thanks for the response. In the case of the Ki-45, my guess is that the IJA was looking for a multi-role fighter/interceptor and that two Sakae engines was the only way to get the payload/armament that they were looking for. Also, they could have used two Kinsei, but instead opted for the less powerful (but more affordable) Sakae. IMO, it was a bad aircraft, as was its navy counterpart on the basis of its underpowered engines.

My analysis isn't fully consistent with the data, though. By 1942, the Japanese High Command had already been pushing for higher horsepower aircraft, perhaps because of the appearance of more powerful allied aircraft, such as the p-38, P-47 and Corsair. Even so, the Ki-84 was designed from the outset to use fewer parts and cost less than other IJA fighters. Maybe Japanese leaders realized that they couldn't continue to win without faster aircraft but they still knew Japan's limited resources and dependence on imports required a cheaper aircraft? And that would have necessitated bigger engines.

The FEAF had aircraft, yes.
But how effective against modern Japanese aircraft flown by combat experienced pilots would they be?

This is what the FEAF have in hand on 7 December:
B-17C - 6
B-17D - 29
B-18 - 15

P-26A - 38
P-35A - 38
P-40B/E - 178

O-46A - 2
O-49 - 3
O-52 - 11

Of these "hundreds", quite a few were on the edge of being obsolete and the pilots would have far more determination than experience.

That's a good point. Adding to your point, the Japanese outnumbered the US almost 2-1 in the air. Japan had around 500 aircraft to the US's 270.
Although I wouldn't call the P-40 obsolete as it was contemporaneous with the Zero and had similar performance. And the later model P-35 weren't total crap either. The Japanese were also flying obsolete aircraft, like the Ki-27, although in numbers similar to the number of Peashooters fielded by the US.

In terms of fighters, there was almost a 1:1 parity. The big difference was in pilot skill whereas the Japanese had many veterns and experienced pilots. Even so, I'm confident that the US would have managed to hold off the Japanese with what they had, even with a bomber-focused tactical dogma dominating their air services.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the response. In the case of the Ki-45, my guess is that the IJA was looking for a multi-role fighter/interceptor and that two Sakae engines was the only way to get the payload/armament that they were looking for. Also, they could have used two Kinsei, but instead opted for the less powerful (but more affordable) Sakae. IMO, it was a bad aircraft, as was its navy counterpart on the basis of its underpowered engines.

IJA might've looked at another side of street, and see how Zero has two cannons, it is pretty fast and rangy on half of the number of engines vs. what Ki-45 had.
One Ha-41/-109 can do whatever two Sakaes or Zuiseis can, while being lighter, less draggy, and cheaper to purchase and operate (fuel mileage was a seroius matter in all the Axis countries back in ww2).

IJN, on the other side, can note the fast speed and excellent range of the D4Y, and see how to morph it into a fighter. With a good radial in the nose, a rehash of the fuel tanks, and a pair of cannons it will not be worse than the J1N as a fighter, while again being cheaper to own and use.

 

[PAT303]

"In common with other Japanese aircraft, the Zero lacked pilot armor and self-sealing tanks. Despite these critical drawbacks the high caliber of the Imperial Navy's fighter pilots and the superb performance of the Zero itself rendered combat losses very light."
This says it all.

No it doesn't, the F4F performance was far below the A6M limiting it's chances of intercepting and attacking at will, against the F6F which did have the performance the A6M was gunned out of the sky. The F4F was similar to the MkV's over Darwin, once they lost the advantage they didn't have the performance to either attack or disengage at their choosing artificially elevation the Zero's invincibility myth, once the Zero met aircraft that could with aggressive pilots that attacked without hesitation it's weaknesses were laid out for all to see.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The F4F was similar to the MkV's over Darwin, once they lost the advantage they didn't have the performance to either attack or disengage at their choosing artificially elevation the Zero's invincibility myth, once the Zero met aircraft that could with aggressive pilots that attacked without hesitation it's weaknesses were laid out for all to see.

The Wildcat was not bad in the Solomons. As with any plane, it boils down to how technology, tactics, and doctrine interact.

 

[GrauGeist]

once the Zero met aircraft that could with aggressive pilots that attacked without hesitation it's weaknesses were laid out for all to see.

Unless the A6M had a skilled pilot at the controls.

Nishizawa was downing the best that the Allies could throw at him, right up through 1944.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

IJA might've looked at another side of street, and see how Zero has two cannons, it is pretty fast and rangy on half of the number of engines vs. what Ki-45 had.
One Ha-41/-109 can do whatever two Sakaes or Zuiseis can, while being lighter, less draggy, and cheaper to purchase and operate (fuel mileage was a seroius matter in all the Axis countries back in ww2).

IJN, on the other side, can note the fast speed and excellent range of the D4Y, and see how to morph it into a fighter. With a good radial in the nose, a rehash of the fuel tanks, and a pair of cannons it will not be worse than the J1N as a fighter, while again being cheaper to own and use.

IIRC, the Ki-45 and Irving were designed to be similar to the Bf-110.

At the time, the Bf-110's twin engine configuration was seen as ideal for a multi-role, long-range escort fighter with larger payload capabilities. But as combat would later prove, the twins tended to be total trash in formation fighting.

Twin engined aircraft should have been a more versatile alternative to a single engined aircraft. The engine nacelles house the landing gear, which makes it easier to support a midwing configuration with greater clearance for bomb loadouts. A single-engined aircraft with equivalent loadout just isn't as easily designed.

In terms of cost, the "Destroyer" was based on inline engines that ouput around 1,200 HP. The japanese versions used a lighter frame but instead had ~1,100 HP Sakae 21 in 1942. And by then the Bf-110 had moved onto 605s. I can't help but feel the Ki-45 and J1N were budget versions of the Bf-110. Lighter, cheaper, and less powerful.

Getting back to the Tojo vs. Jack discussion, I've got to say that the Tojo made a lot more sense than the Jack. It may have been cheaper but that's not neccessarily a bad thing. The Mustang was a relatively cheap aircraft compared to a Spitfire. A Mustang was about equivalent in performance but with an emphasis on being easy to mass produce. The thing cost like half that of a P-47. You'd definitely want to fly a Raiden over a Tojo but from a strategic perspective, the Tojo had a more significant impact on the war compared to the Jack. I've got to change my vote.

 

[PAT303]

Unless the A6M had a skilled pilot at the controls.

Nishizawa was downing the best that the Allies could throw at him, right up through 1944.

The F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio over the A6M, so for every plane Nishazawa downed 19 of his mates went down in return.

 

[GrauGeist]

The F6F had a 19:1 kill ratio over the A6M, so for every plane Nishazawa downed 19 of his mates went down in return.

Like the Luftwaffe, the Japanese pilot pool was losing experience while the aircraft manufacturing could not keep up with loses.

However, the point is, the A6M was still able to defeat the newest of Allied aircraft in the hands of capable pilots.

 

[tomo pauk]

Getting back to the Tojo vs. Jack discussion, I've got to say that the Tojo made a lot more sense than the Jack. It may have been cheaper but that's not neccessarily a bad thing. The Mustang was a relatively cheap aircraft compared to a Spitfire. A Mustang was about equivalent in performance but with an emphasis on being easy to mass produce. The thing cost like half that of a P-47. You'd definitely want to fly a Raiden over a Tojo but from a strategic perspective, the Tojo had a more significant impact on the war compared to the Jack. I've got to change my vote.

Being cheaper, while doing the same job almost as good as the more expensive A/C is indeed not a bad thing. Tojo was a no-nonsense aircraft, hence it was put in the service earlier and was produced in greater numbers.
Raiden was carrying 2x 20mm cannons, though, and later 4x 20mm.

 

[PAT303]

However, the point is, the A6M was still able to defeat the newest of Allied aircraft in the hands of capable pilots.

If it found itself in a favourable position with an experienced pilot flying it and the opposing aircraft politely flew to it's strengths yes the A6M could defeat the newest Allied aircraft, on the other hand if the Allied aircraft decided to not play nicely, fight to it's strength and stayed above 200mph in a maneuvering fight the Zero was gunned down at a ratio of 19:1.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If it found itself in a favourable position with an experienced pilot flying it and the opposing aircraft politely flew to it's strengths yes the A6M could defeat the newest Allied aircraft, on the other hand if the Allied aircraft decided to not play nicely, fight to it's strength and stayed above 200mph in a maneuvering fight the Zero was gunned down at a ratio of 19:1.

"Claims."

 

[PAT303]

"Claims."

We can only go off the information we have, none of you would pick the A6M over the F6F to fight a war so there's your answer.

 

[tomo pauk]

IRC, the Ki-45 and Irving were designed to be similar to the Bf-110.

At the time, the Bf-110's twin engine configuration was seen as ideal for a multi-role, long-range escort fighter with larger payload capabilities. But as combat would later prove, the twins tended to be total trash in formation fighting.

Japanese were not taking the advantages of their 2-engined fighters as much as it was the case for the Western types. Neither Ki-45 nor J1N were adopted to carry some meaningful bomb load like it was the case with Bf 110 or P-38.

Twin engined aircraft should have been a more versatile alternative to a single engined aircraft. The engine nacelles house the landing gear, which makes it easier to support a midwing configuration with greater clearance for bomb loadouts. A single-engined aircraft with equivalent loadout just isn't as easily designed.

Either a twin-engined aircraft is more versatile, or it should offer the performance overmatch when compared with same generation 1-engined aircraft. Otherwise it is bad use of resources. Japanese twin-engined fighters were lacking both in versatility and in overmatch. Even the guns' firepower was not great for a twin.
Granted, the J1N was rangy.
Unless there is no bomb bay or a fuselage recess for a big bomb or torpedo, a low-wing twin is better than a mid-wing IMO wrt. clearance for bomb loadouts.

There was a number of 1-engined fighters that carried big bombs or were even rated for a torpedo, these loadouts missing from the Japanese 2-engined fighters.

 

[tomo pauk]

We can only go off the information we have, none of you would pick the A6M over the F6F to fight a war so there's your answer.

That choice is not existing before mid-1943. 18-20 months of the war is a very long time.
It is not fault of the Zero that IJN and Japanese aero industry were slow in introducing the next-gen carrier-borne fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We can only go off the information we have, none of you would pick the A6M over the F6F to fight a war so there's your answer.

You're right but it's still been well established that those numbers are CLAIMS and the actual kill ratio between the F6F and A6M will never be known as with other aircraft that dominated the Zero