Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[SaparotRob]

Where'd that goalpost go?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Which one are you saying is spectacular, the G3M or the G4M, or both?

Mosquito -

Looks - Spectacular
Performance (actual) - Spectacular
Ability to survive missions - Spectacular*
Ability to hit ground targets - Spectacular
Ability to hit ships - Good

*with the caveat that certain missions that no other aircraft could even do, did cost heavy losses

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Ju-87 and SBD sunk more ships than the G4M. What's your point?

They were better ship killers than the G4M. Much better than the B-17. Ju 87 was also probably instrumental to the German ground victory in France. But both SBD and Ju 87 lacked range (compared to Mosquito but also notably compared to all the Japanese land based bombers) and survivability (especially compared to the Mosquito).

D3A was certainly competitive with both the Ju 87 and the SBD

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You said spectacular bomber. Singular. I thought the goalpost was elsewhere.

yes, my point is that none of the bomber designs in that early phase were spectacular. With one possible exception being the Mossie.

 

[SaparotRob]

Caveats? Vas ist das caveats? Was that what just went by, a goalpost?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Where'd that goalpost go?

If you lost the plot, the point was the Japanese aircraft, specifically here early WW2 bombers, were not actually inferior to European or American types. I never said any of them were spectacular.

I would say that the B7A was spectacular though, as a late war design. And superior to all comparable designs for the intended (ship sinking) role.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Caveats? Vas ist das caveats? Was that what just went by, a goalpost?

If you don't like context, or 'caveats' - go for the raw numbers:

The Mosquito

The Mosquito, an unconventional wooden British warplane should not have been a success against Axis powers but it was.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

"the lowest loss rate of any British Bomber Command plane during the war—0.63 percent compared with the Lancaster's 2.13, the Blenheim at 3.62, and the Stirling at 3.81 percent."

Don't try to claim I'm moving goal posts. You may be sitting on one.

 

[SaparotRob]

Okay, you took a side trip as to spectacular bomber, 1941, 1942. I gave the obvious answer. The Mossie is a spectacular airplane. I chose it in a "Which WW 2 fighter would you choose?" thread. It could ,statistically, run away from anything. See, can I muddy the waters too.
You said there were no spectacular bombers in 1941, 1942. Now you're saying the Mosquito is spectacular bomber. It was around in 1941 or 1942.
I believe I just got you to admit there was a spectacular bomber then. You had previously said there were none. So it is possible for a spectacular bomber to exist then. If one does exist, unless you disagree with yourself, perhaps another could too.
The B-17 was one of the two.

You went there, Bluto.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Okay, you took a side trip as to spectacular bomber, 1941, 1942. I gave the obvious answer. The Mossie is a spectacular airplane. I chose it in a "Which WW 2 fighter would you choose?" thread. It could ,statistically, run away from anything. See, can I muddy the waters too.
You said there were no spectacular bombers in 1941, 1942. Now you're saying the Mosquito is spectacular bomber. It was around in 1941 or 1942.
I believe I just got you to admit there was a spectacular bomber then. You had previously said there were none. So it is possible for a spectacular bomber to exist then. If one does exist, unless you disagree with yourself, perhaps another could too.
The B-17 was one of the two.

I swear. Aviation discussions would be good practice for law school.

This is the post that started this particular 'branch':

Pulling back to a wider view for a moment, the combination of 300 mph speed with a 20mm defensive gun (and later 20mm plus five 12.7mm) looks pretty good compared to other light and medium bombers around the world. The US types were more heavily armed but either slower or had much shorter range. Until the "5th Airforce revolution" in 1943, they were not necessarily any more effective in terms of the operational history than the Japanese bombers were.

The German types were not particularly impressive in comparison, with the exception of the dive bombing ability (for a while) of the Ju 88. The Italian and Soviet and British types don't compare that well either.

The Japanese bombers weren't spectacular but then, what bomber was in 1941 or 1942? They all had design flaws. The only real standout is the Mosquito, and it took a long time to be developed into a successful bomber.

So .... nope.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't think the 1941 -42 vintage B-17 qualified as spectacular (aside from looks). Promising, yes sure.

 

[SaparotRob]

I swear. Aviation discussions would be good practice for law school.

I know, right?

This was fun!

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't think the 1941 -42 vintage B-17 qualified as spectacular (aside from looks). Promising, yes sure.

Ok, I hit reply on this one by accident.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sr6 has made a lot out of the 'junk guns' of the Japanese. There is some truth to that. They had rather poor small arms and crew served infantry weapons as well, but they were able to make them work well enough to sweep aside British and American forces in Malaya and the Philippines, and to prove quite a challenge in many subsequent land battles in China and in various Pacific Islands.

Probably a matter of the allies giving short-shrift to those areas, rather than quality of guns on the ground or in the planes. Both Indian troops in Malaya and Filipino troops on Luzon weren't well-trained or supported.

Put another way, a staunch and experienced fighter with a so-so gun against a rookie with a good gun, who would you bet on?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Looks cool, has some impressive traits, but wasn't exactly breaking the enemy's back in 1941-1943. The main problem in the Pacific was that they couldn't hit anything.

They could do unescorted long-range recon with a good chance of surviving, a valuable capability in SoWesPac in 1942.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't buy the notion that all the troops in the Pacific or CBI were substandard. The pilots and crews of the ships at Pearl Harbor, the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, the RAF squadrons in Rangoon or Singapore were not half-trained colonials. Nor were the US pilots at Manilla or the Spitfire pilots at Darwin. I don't think Malaya or the Philippines would have been saved with Spitfires either, though that is harder to prove.

I also understand it to be the case that Indian troops fought well at El Alamein and many other battles in Burma etc., and Filipino troops were quite formidable during the reconquest of the Philippines.

Fair point about the B-17 as an armed recon plane, I agree with that. It was useful in that role. Same for the B-24 once it arrived. PBY was pretty useful too, so was the Hudson even. But the Japanese also had the Ki-46, H8K etc.

 

[GrauGeist]

Let's put it into perspective. 1941 -1942, even 1943 B-17, did hit a few things in the Pacific. I have the operational histories. But not too many. You are talking like once out of 20 missions. Japanese bombers did a lot better than that. D3A Val's hit rate was 50% in some strikes. G3M and G4M also routinely drew blood, albeit at a high cost.

B-17

Looks - spectacular
Theoretical performance - spectacular
Ability to survive missions - very good (Pacific), good (Med), poor (NW / Central Europe)
Ability to hit ground targets - fair
Ability to hit ships - poor

They did do one low-level raid on Rabaul with B-17s which was successful (and pretty close to the original design mission of this aircraft), and they even hit ships a couple of times, but the ratio of destruction of any significant enemy targets per mission was very, very low. In terms of the true role of the B-17 in the Pacific, it was a maritime armed recon plane which could harass ships and sometimes hit a few planes at airfields and once in a while, a ship or two.

In the Med it was a bit more effective against airfields etc. in 1943, (with many 8th AF planes transferred south for a while) but short of spectacular. B-24 had more impact in that Theater though it too had it's flaws.



Well, I would note, pertinent to this thread, that the Japanese Navy sunk most of the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Then pretty much all British shipping quite swiftly around Malay and Singapore, including their strategic naval assets (battleships) by using, incidentally, G3M and G4Ms. Then all the US shipping around the Philippines. So I would say that was a fairly significant blow struck mainly by bombers.



G4M sunk more ships than the B-17



Helped the Soviets break the German war machine during these exact years. Stalingrad was in 1942.




I get the joke, and I like B-17s too, but it wasn't quite the world beater at that stage of the war.

B-17 was originally meant to be a coastal defense, maritime patrol bomber. It was pretty good in that role, but that wasn't a decisive mission. Like I said, if you put a (working) torpedo on it, it would have been pretty scary IMO.

They adapted it to Strategic bombing, by improving it and providing excellent escort fighters. That did end up being decisive but that wasn't until 1944. And by 1944, I don't think you can make the case that the German army had a chance to defeat the Soviet army any more regardless of how many ball-bearing factories we bombed.

The one thing that the B-17 did accomplish on many occasions, was causing the Japanese fleet to scatter and lose formation, which in turn made the seperated ships ripe targets for the low level attackers.

So in essence, they did achieve success even if they didn't actually hit anything.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The one thing that the B-17 did accomplish on many occasions, was causing the Japanese fleet to scatter and lose formation, which in turn made the seperated ships ripe targets for the low level attackers.

So in essence, they did achieve success even if they didn't actually hit anything.

That's fair too. But does that make it better in the anti-shipping role than say, a Betty or a D3A?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't buy the notion that all the troops in the Pacific or CBI were substandard.

It's a good thing I didn't say that!

But if you look at troop ratios (trained-untrained, equipped/supplied-unequipped/unsupplied), and as already pointed out, experience, the Japanese had other superiorites which have nothing to do with their mediocre weapons yet still played large roles in their winning. So arguing that their victories support the idea that their arms were better is still not supported.

The idea that Japanese victories imply that their guns were better is a logical fallacy, to wit, post hoc ergo propter hoc, insofar as it ignores the other factors of their victory, such as superior planning, surprise, the enemy being distracted (there's that whole war in Europe thing), and so on.

Fair point about the B-17 as an armed recon plane, I agree with that. It was useful in that role. Same for the B-24 once it arrived. PBY was pretty useful too, so was the Hudson even. But the Japanese also had the Ki-46, H8K etc.

And they were good planes ... until the bullets started hitting.

Also, since you mentioned the H8K, might you tell us how many got built, and then put up the same number for B-17/B-24? That too speaks to the technological edge a nation has -- not only to develop high-tech, but to put it into widespread service.

 

[Shortround6]

PBY was pretty useful too, so was the Hudson even. But the Japanese also had the Ki-46, H8K etc.

Hmmm,
PBY, first flight 1935
Hudson first flight Dec 1938, armed version of the Lockheed 14 Airliner. first flight July 1937.
200 Hudsons produced in 1939

Ki-46 first flight Nov 1939.
Ki-46 II first flight March 1941
H8K-1 first flight Dec 1940. 17 built.
The H8K-2 went into combat in 1943.

Am I detecting a pattern here???

No, I am confirming a pattern.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hmmm,
PBY, first flight 1935
Hudson first flight Dec 1938, armed version of the Lockheed 14 Airliner. first flight July 1937.
200 Hudsons produced in 1939

Ki-46 first flight Nov 1939.
Ki-46 II first flight March 1941
H8K-1 first flight Dec 1940. 17 built.
The H8K-2 went into combat in 1943.

Am I detecting a pattern here???

No, I am confirming a pattern.

Now I understand. I feel your pain.