Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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!
I have to disagree. The US high command weren't fools. They fully expected a war.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.
The FEAF had aircraft, yes.They did have hundreds of aircraft
The US even had early warning that an attack was happening but chose to ignore it.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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."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.
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.
Unless the A6M had a skilled pilot at the controls.once the Zero met aircraft that could with aggressive pilots that attacked without hesitation it's weaknesses were laid out for all to see.
IIRC, the Ki-45 and Irving were designed to be similar to the Bf-110.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.
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.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.
Like the Luftwaffe, the Japanese pilot pool was losing experience while the aircraft manufacturing could not keep up with loses.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.
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.
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.However, the point is, the A6M was still able to defeat the newest of Allied aircraft in the hands of capable pilots.
"Claims."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.
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."Claims."
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.
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.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.
That choice is not existing before mid-1943. 18-20 months of the war is a very long time.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 ZeroWe 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.