Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The success of the Washington was not just due to radar, there was a lot of luck, including the misfortune of the South Dakota resulting in it's drawing a lot of enemy fire, particularly when it passed in front of a burning ship. But the biggest factor was that the skipper of the Washington, Willis Lee, was literally the ballistics instructor for the entire US navy, a top expert in naval gunnery, who had trained the crew to a very high level.

Willis Augustus Lee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Super hard core guy who also was known for having personally shot three snipers in an action in Mexico in 1914. Lee was probably the ideal commander to have in that situation. By the time he opened fire the Japanese had already revealed their positions with gunfire and a searchlight.

The radar helped them, but the radar on the Washington was also so crude that the victory, as impressive as it was, was diminished because Lee couldn't be sure what he was looking at and didn't know where the South Dakota was (SD being disabled and unable to communicate, and he couldn't see it with his radar) so he held his fire for the most of the engagement, both before and after he sunk Kirishima. He could have sank several more IJN ships.


The first real decisive surface victory mainly attributable to radar for the Americans was in August 1943, at the Battle of Vella Gulf.

 

[EwenS]

The thing was, most of those night actions in the Pacific did not hinge on 5" or 6" guns, more like 8" and 10" and 12" and 14" and 16" guns, and for the Japanese in particular very effective torpedoes.

That may be true of the better known actions of 1942. But what about the following.

Battle of Cape Esperance 11/12 Oct 1942

Battle of Cape Esperance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Half the US cruiser force was 6" ships. Boise & Helena.

Battle of Kula Gulf 6 July 1943

Battle of Kula Gulf - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

US cruiser squadron of 3 x 6" ships. Helena sunk.

Battle of Kolombangara 12/13 July 1943

Battle of Kolombangara - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nothing bigger than 6" including the RNZN cruiser Leander. All 3 Allied 6" cruisers were torpedoed with Leander out of the war for keeps.


Battle of Empress Augusta Bay 1/2 November 1943

Battle of Empress Augusta Bay - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

4 Cleveland class. Only ships with anything more than 6" were on the Japanese side.

And there were a number of actions involving US destroyers only.

 

[Shortround6]

The thing was, most of those night actions in the Pacific did not hinge on 5" or 6" guns, more like 8" and 10" and 12" and 14" and 16" guns, and for the Japanese in particular very effective torpedoes.

There were no 10in guns unless it was a relic from well before WW I. Likewise the 12in guns were few and far between.
The Arkansas (BB34) spent WW II in the Atlantic until Jan 1945.
Until the Alaska and Guam Show up the Arkansas was only 12in gun ship in the US Navy after 1931.

The Japanese had no active 12" gun armed ships. The Mikasa was not steaming around the South Pacific looking for a fight.

Night battles were the province of 5" and 6" guns. The 8 in guns fired too slow and at night had no range advantage over the 6" guns ships. The shorter ranges also meant that the 6" guns could often penetrate the large cruisers armor at combat ranges.
The US 14" gun ships were too slow, those that were battleworthy after PH, at least well into 1943/44.

Basically in 1942 and much of 1943 it was 4.7", 5", 5.5", 6", 8in and about 2 ships per side with 14in or bigger guns.
For the US the new Cruisers that showed up in 1942/early 1943 were the Atlanta's with 16 5" and the Cleveland's with 6" guns.
The first Baltimore's wouldn't show up until the 2nd 1/2 of 1943.

flash less or more properly "less flash" powder was very important while they were sorting out radar and better fire control.

 

[marathag]

they didn't have surface FC radars,

Had the XAF in New York and CXZ in Texas in 1938, with the best features of both combined as the CXAM in Pennsylvania, California, Wee Vee, Yorktown, and a couple others over 1940-41, around two dozen sets.
Good for air search up to 75 miles away, and BB sized units at 16 nautical miles and Destroyers at 12 for both detection as well as basic FC for tracking fall of shot from the main guns, tested by the USN in 1938 with the Texas and New York trials.

Its replacement, the SC, was more limited in performance at first, but its main advantage was a far smaller and lighter Antenna Array(the CXAM 'bedspring' weighed over two tons) and had a PPI Scope display rather than the A scope on the earlier Radars, making operation easier for the crew to 'see' what the radar signals were saying.
The other problem of earlier US Radar was the shortages of IFF gear for aircraft, that in part led to what happened at Coral Sea, information overload on Lexington Air Plot while Yorktown's radar was out

 

[RCAFson]

Had the XAF in New York and CXZ in Texas in 1938, with the best features of both combined as the CXAM in Pennsylvania, California, Wee Vee, Yorktown, and a couple others over 1940-41, around two dozen sets.
Good for air search up to 75 miles away, and BB sized units at 16 nautical miles and Destroyers at 12 for both detection as well as basic FC for tracking fall of shot from the main guns, tested by the USN in 1938 with the Texas and New York trials.

Its replacement, the SC, was more limited in performance at first, but its main advantage was a far smaller and lighter Antenna Array(the CXAM 'bedspring' weighed over two tons) and had a PPI Scope display rather than the A scope on the earlier Radars, making operation easier for the crew to 'see' what the radar signals were saying.
The other problem of earlier US Radar was the shortages of IFF gear for aircraft, that in part led to what happened at Coral Sea, information overload on Lexington Air Plot while Yorktown's radar was out

The CXAM was primarily an air search radar as it wasn't mounted on a FC director and the problems of target identification at night would have been daunting, especially if the director personnel are blinded by flash.

 

[marathag]

The CXAM was primarily an air search radar as it wasn't mounted on a FC director and the problems of target identification at night would have been daunting, especially if the director personnel are blinded by flash.

The older set on New York was able to track 14" shells in flight. Problem was all the data that showed on the A-Scope, it took a really good operator to translate it. Since it, and the later CXAM was poor at height finding, was neither a pure air search or FC unit. The Grid had to be manually rotated by the operator to really determine bearing, so multiple targets would lead to operator overload and tunnel vision. That was one of the lesser known take aways from the Coral Sea action, that each ship needed multiple dedicated radar sets, and Aircraft must have IFF gear, so the CAP didn't have verify each radar contact visually Lexington's CAP chased down a lot of friendlies, allowing IJN a/c to get closer

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There were no 10in guns unless it was a relic from well before WW I. Likewise the 12in guns were few and far between.
The Arkansas (BB34) spent WW II in the Atlantic until Jan 1945.
Until the Alaska and Guam Show up the Arkansas was only 12in gun ship in the US Navy after 1931.

The Japanese had no active 12" gun armed ships. The Mikasa was not steaming around the South Pacific looking for a fight.
View attachment 731814

Night battles were the province of 5" and 6" guns. The 8 in guns fired too slow and at night had no range advantage over the 6" guns ships. The shorter ranges also meant that the 6" guns could often penetrate the large cruisers armor at combat ranges.
The US 14" gun ships were too slow, those that were battleworthy after PH, at least well into 1943/44.

Basically in 1942 and much of 1943 it was 4.7", 5", 5.5", 6", 8in and about 2 ships per side with 14in or bigger guns.
For the US the new Cruisers that showed up in 1942/early 1943 were the Atlanta's with 16 5" and the Cleveland's with 6" guns.
The first Baltimore's wouldn't show up until the 2nd 1/2 of 1943.

flash less or more properly "less flash" powder was very important while they were sorting out radar and better fire control.

I really love you guys. Y'all are so cute.

The Japanese had three BB or BC classes with 14" guns (Kongo, Fuso, Ise) with a range of over 30 km, one with 16" (Nagato), and of course the Yamato with 18".

They had no less than 5 heavy cruiser classes with 8" guns (Furutaka, Aoba, Myoko, Takao and Tone) with a 29 km range, and only one with a 6" gun (the Mogami).

But I'm sure the British flashless powder would have saved the day. Just ignore those 14" and 8" shells sailing by. Stiff upper lip. Blast them with the 5" They'll never see it coming!

Don't worry we are going do the RN vs IJN. I just don't have time yet. But I will. And we are going to do this until all hands go down with the ship.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

I can't say about 'should have been' but according to the pilots, the Ki-43 did not have this problem, and could still turn and roll at higher speeds.

It's not unheard of for pilots' first-hand experiences to conflict with the historical record or for authors to make embellishments or errors in their books. Compounding this problem is that many Japanese pilots have had their first-hand accounts translated roughly into English. So what we've read may not be precisely what the Japanese pilots reported.

That said, I'm not familiar with the source that you're quoting but I am familiar with the physical properties of aileron design. As a rule for WW2 aircraft: the more maneuverable an aircraft, the poorer its high-speed turn rate due to the pressure exerted on the ailerons.

Maybe, but it clearly wasn't just a stunt plane.

Yes, you're right. A better description would have been for me to say it was as close to a stunt plane as a WW2 monoplane could get.

It's also worth pointing out that the IJN tactics with Zeros were basically 'boom and zoom', and the maneuverability was there for dealing with situations in which they needed to escape, evade or turn the tables in a hurry (which they often did)

You are right about this. All the IJN's best pilots reported using B&Z on any aircraft that they had an altitude advantage on. Tetsuzo Iwamoto famously journaled about how B&Z was his favorite tactic.

Perhaps they should have installed 20mm cowl guns on the Ki-43-II when any were available (not until 1944 as i understand), at least that would have been a stronger punch. I've read that the weight increase was 46 kg when they fitted the guns on the Ki-43-IIIb in 1945 (no, it never had a Ha-33 engine, the engine was the same Ha-115-II). Aiui, they couldn't put guns in the wing because of it's 3 spar design.

OR if the Ki-61 has a radial from the start, have Tachikawa build radial Ki-61s from 1943. That would make this radial Ki-61 the main IJAAF fighter of the war.

AFAIK, it was the Ki-61 that was a three-spar design. IIRC, the Ki-43 used one or two wing spar. I believe this to be true because the Ki-61 had the most number of spars out of any Japanese aircraft (and I think any WW2 fighter, period). There wouldn't be any reason to use a three-spar design on the Ki-43 because at high dive speeds, it would suffer from horrendous control stiffening due to its large ailerons and proportionally large wing relative to its weight.

I think Francilion wrote about the Ki-43-III Otsu as having two twenties but I believe this to be an error. The aircraft we think is the Ki-43 III Otsu may actually be a Ki-43 IV or it could be a Ki-43 III with two twenties and no engine upgrade. See below for details.

And here we have problem with what the Japanese may have been doing. According to Francillon there were 10 Ki-43 IIIs and two Ki-43 IIIBs and the IIIa's had Ha-115 II engines and 12.7mm guns and the IIIb's had the Ha-33 engine and the 20mm guns. He could very well have been in error. One or more the aircraft may have been fitted with a different engine at some point. Who knows. In the Spring and Summer of 1945 it was pretty chaotic so I am certainly not going to say what some prototype did or did not have at given point point in time.

You also had Ki-43 IIs with and without ejector exhausts so that is no help.

IIRC, 20mm were installed on some models of Sakae-equipped Ki-43. On these forums and elsewhere someone reported that Francilion got some facts about the Ki-43 incorrect. IDK if this is true but apparently the mark-# in a model for IJA aircraft refers to the engine. For example, as with all other IJA aircraft, the Ki-43-I and Ki-43-II had different engines. The Ki-61-I and Ki-61-II had different engines. So too did the Tojo I and II. This pattern suggests that the Ki-43-III Otsu had a Sakae 31e engine, which introduced water methanol injection. The Ki-43 IV (which may not have actually been made) should have had a 1,500 Kinsei installed. But in the records, they refer to the Ki-43 III Otsu as having a Kinsei engine. If the engine mark-# rule is true, then it means Francilion made an error and that there never was a Kinsei-equipped Ki-43 and rather it was a Ki-43-III with Ho-5 cannon installed.

 

[Shortround6]

I really love you guys. Y'all are so cute.

The Japanese had three BB or BC classes with 14" guns (Kongo, Fuso, Ise) with a range of over 30 km, one with 16" (Nagato), and of course the Yamato with 18".

They had no less than 5 heavy cruiser classes with 8" guns (Furutaka, Aoba, Myoko, Takao and Tone) with a 29 km range, and only one with a 6" gun (the Mogami).

But I'm sure the British flashless powder would have saved the day. Just ignore those 14" and 8" shells sailing by. Stiff upper lip. Blast them with the 5" They'll never see it coming!

Don't worry we are going do the RN vs IJN. I just don't have time yet. But I will. And we are going to do this until all hands go down with the ship.

If it isn't better based in facts than this little discussion don't bother with the RN vs IJN thread.

You skip right passed the total lack of 10" and 12" guns that you claimed.

You also don't seem to know that the Mogami class was re-armed with 8in guns in 1939-40, granted western intelligence didn't know that either that got good recon photos in 1942.
3 of the 5 class of 8" ships you list total 6 ships. 2 ships each and the Furutaka and the Aoba classes had six 8"in guns (three twin turrets) These four ships had four 4.7in guns for AA (or star shell) so good with torpedoes but not so good in a night gun fight.

The Ise class (2) spent most (all?) of the Solomon's Campaign being converted to hybrid carriers, how much the US knew???
The Fuso class was good for about 24-25kts so they wanted to keep them back, away from carrier strikes in daylight which limits the 14" ships to the 4 Kongo's.
BTW the Nagato's sister ship didn't blow itself up until June of 1943.

Japanese had 5-6 classes of light cruisers (17 ships total) that date back to 1918-1924 that were close to the RN C & D classes, single 5.5in guns and rearmed with 24in torpedoes. Some of these saw action in battles in the Solomons, some in the classic role of destroyer leaders.
An Atlanta class Cruiser was nothing to scoff at in a night battle.

Fourteen 5" guns on broadside, maybe it couldn't pierce belt armor but the topsides could take quite a beating.

BTW, the Japanese often only used 1in plate on their 8" gun turrets so getting shot up by 5in guns was not a good game plan.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As far as I'm aware, the control stiffening on the Ki-43 should have been even worse than on a Zero. The larger the wing area and the aileron, the greater the impact of air flowing over the aileron and wing.

On top of that, the lighter the aircraft, the worse its diving ability.

AVG P-40 pilots were specifically trained to dive away from Japanese fighters, including Ki-43s.

 

[EwenS]

If it isn't better based in facts than this little discussion don't bother with the RN vs IJN thread.

You skip right passed the total lack of 10" and 12" guns that you claimed.

You also don't seem to know that the Mogami class was re-armed with 8in guns in 1939-40, granted western intelligence didn't know that either that got good recon photos in 1942.
3 of the 5 class of 8" ships you list total 6 ships. 2 ships each and the Furutaka and the Aoba classes had six 8"in guns (three twin turrets) These four ships had four 4.7in guns for AA (or star shell) so good with torpedoes but not so good in a night gun fight.

The Ise class (2) spent most (all?) of the Solomon's Campaign being converted to hybrid carriers, how much the US knew???

Ise converted at Kure 23 Dec 1942 or 23 Feb 1943 to 5 Sept 1943.
Hyuga converted 2 May -30 Nov 1943 at Sasebo

The Fuso class was good for about 24-25kts so they wanted to keep them back, away from carrier strikes in daylight which limits the 14" ships to the 4 Kongo's.
BTW the Nagato's sister ship didn't blow itself up until June of 1943.

Japanese had 5-6 classes of light cruisers (17 ships total) that date back to 1918-1924 that were close to the RN C & D classes, single 5.5in guns and rearmed with 24in torpedoes. Some of these saw action in battles in the Solomons, some in the classic role of destroyer leaders.

Japanese light cruiser classes at 7 Dec 1941:-
Kuma class - 5 ships. Kitakami & Oi converted to torpedo cruisers in 1941 with reduced gun armament (4x5.5") and 40x24" TT (in 10 quad mounts)
Nagara class - 6 ships
Naka class - 3 ships
Yubari
Katori class training cruisers - 3 ships

During WW2 they also built the following:-
Agano class - 4 ships ( one completion in 1942, 2 in 1943 and the last in Nov 1944)
Oyodo - intended as a flagship for submarine flotillas was hangar aft for 6 aircraft (sister ship cancelled before being laid down). Completed Feb 1943.

An Atlanta class Cruiser was nothing to scoff at in a night battle.
View attachment 731867
Fourteen 5" guns on broadside, maybe it couldn't pierce belt armor but the topsides could take quite a beating.

The second group (Oakland group completed 1943-45) lost the beam 5" turrets for more light AA. The third group (or Juneau class) completed postwar saw turrets 2-5 all lowered by one deck, again to support more lighter AA and radar.

BTW, the Japanese often only used 1in plate on their 8" gun turrets so getting shot up by 5in guns was not a good game plan.

Edit - Oops! I forgot the two Tenryu class built before the Kumas.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

AVG P-40 pilots were specifically trained to die away from Japanese fighters, including Ki-43s.

I hope you meant dive

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I hope you meant dive

Hope so also!

 

[marathag]

AFAIK, it was the Ki-61 that was a three-spar design. IIRC, the Ki-43 used one or two wing spar. I believe this to be true because the Ki-61 had the most number of spars out of any Japanese aircraft (and I think any WW2 fighter, period).

Five on the Curtiss fighters

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

Five on the Curtiss fighters

Wow, that's a huge number of spars.

I found a schematic that says seven spars but shows three in the cutaway. Seven spars just sounds like overkill. What were they diving this thing at?

 

[ThomasP]

re "Five [spars] on the Curtiss fighters"

Maybe on their biplanes?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

If it isn't better based in facts than this little discussion don't bother with the RN vs IJN thread.

I'm very glad to say that you are not the arbiter of literally anything I do, say, or type online.

You skip right passed the total lack of 10" and 12" guns that you claimed.

No, you bulldozed through to the conclusion that you already believed before you even checked the data. The US in fact did have warships - 'super' heavy cruisers, with 12" guns which did see action in WW2, albeit later in the war

Alaska-class cruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 10" gun or naval rifle was obsolete by the war, (though there were still some old shore guns with them) so I agree, that is a mistake on my part. I should have double checked each caliber I mentioned and I too am guilty here. But it's really a slight omission on my part which doesn't at all change the point I was making one bit, i.e. that the outcome of surface battles in the Pacific war was typically decided by larger guns, and / or torpedoes. Not the light guns.

Therefore 'flashless' powder is not decsive factor as RCAFson was trying to claim. Battleships if they were present (with 14" or 16" guns, usually) did most of the killing, or heavy cruisers (with 8" guns, usually), and / or the torpedoes and not so much by the 5" or 6" guns, which were secondary guns on the bigger warships and / or the main guns on destroyers and light cruisers. The only battles in which the secondary guns were really decisive were those where there were only lighter ships present, or where the ships ended up at very close range (such as during the first naval battle of Guadalcanal).

There is a reason they built battleships and heavy cruisers. The caliber of the guns isn't the only factor either, the armor also plays a role.

All of which either you know already, but choose not to think about, or didn't know because you aren't that well informed about naval warfare but made very categorical statements about anyway.

You also don't seem to know that the Mogami class was re-armed with 8in guns in 1939-40, granted western intelligence didn't know that either that got good recon photos in 1942.

So what? It had 8" guns during the war like most heavy cruisers on both sides in the Pacific War. I don't think it matters they got the 8" guns in 1940.

3 of the 5 class of 8" ships you list total 6 ships. 2 ships each and the Furutaka and the Aoba classes had six 8"in guns (three twin turrets) These four ships had four 4.7in guns for AA (or star shell) so good with torpedoes but not so good in a night gun fight.

You aren't changing the story here. Most of the major surface engagements in the Pacific War did involve heavy cruisers or battleships with 8" or larger guns on one or both sides. The Japanese also had their quite deadly torpedoes which were often the most telling weapon.

The Ise class (2) spent most (all?) of the Solomon's Campaign being converted to hybrid carriers, how much the US knew???
The Fuso class was good for about 24-25kts so they wanted to keep them back, away from carrier strikes in daylight which limits the 14" ships to the 4 Kongo's.
BTW the Nagato's sister ship didn't blow itself up until June of 1943.

Japanese had 5-6 classes of light cruisers (17 ships total) that date back to 1918-1924 that were close to the RN C & D classes, single 5.5in guns and rearmed with 24in torpedoes. Some of these saw action in battles in the Solomons, some in the classic role of destroyer leaders.

Ok lets cut to the chase and go strait to the actual major surface battles in the Pacific.

Battle of Badung Strait (Feb 1942) *
IJN - 4 destroyers
HNLMS - Tromp (6"), Light cruiser, destroyer
USN - 3 destroyers
(one destroyer sunk, cruiser and three destroyers damaged by naval gunfire)

Battle of the Java Sea (Feb 1942)
IJN - Haguro (8"), Nachi (8"), two light cruisers, 14 destroyers.
RN - Exeter (8"), three destroyers
USN - Houston (8"), three destroyers
HNLMS - Light cruiser, two destroyers
RAN - Light Cruiser
(noteworthy at this battle that HMS Exeter had radar but scored no hits and was crippled by IJN 8" gunfire, while Houston did score some hits but not enough to sink anything. The Japanese got one torpedo hit, sinking a destroyer, and sunk 2 light cruises and 2 other destroyers by long range naval gunfire)

Second Battle of the Java Sea (March 1942)
IJN - Haguro (8"), Nachi (8"), five destroyers, a light carrier and two seaplane tenders
RN - Exeter (8") (already damaged), one destroyer
HNLMS - one destroyer

Battle of Savo Island (Aug 1942)
IJN - Chokai (8"), Furutaka (8"), Kako (8"), Aoba (8"), Kunugasa (8"), two CL,
USN - Chicago (8"), Vincennes (8"), Astoria (8"), Quincy (8)", four destroyers
RAN - Australia (8"), Canberra (8")
(two US destroyers had radar but it didn't help)

Battle of Cape Esperance (Oct 1942):
IJN - Furutaka (8"), Aoba (8"), Kinugasa (8") and 2 destroyers
USN - New Orleans (8"), Salt Lake City (8"), two light cruisers and 5 destroyers

Battle of Santa Cruz Islands (Oct 1942)
IJN - Atago, Takao, Myoko and Maya (all with 8"), Hiei, Kirishimi (14"), Kongo, Haruna (with the CVs - 14"), Suzuya (8"), Tone (8"), Chikuma (8") - plus CL and many destoryers
USN - Northampton (8"), Pensacola (8"), Portland (8"), South Dakota (16")

Naval battle of Guadalcanal (Nov 1942)
IJN - Hiei (14"), Kirishima (14"), 1 light cruiser, 11 destroyers
USN - New Orleans (8"), Portland (8"), 3 light cruiser, 8 destroyers
(major damage caused by Japanese heavy guns, but US destroyers also wrought havoc with very close range gunfire, including with light AA)

Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (Nov 1942)
IJN - Kirishima (14"), Takao (8"), Atago (8"), two CL, 9 DD
USN - Washington (16"), South Dakota (16"), four DD
(Washington used radar somewhat effectively, South Dakota suffered a malfunction. Damage was caused mainly by Washington and Kirishima guns, US DDs were destroyed)

Battle of Tassafaronga (Nov 1942)
IJN - 8 Destroyers
USN - Minneapolis (8"), New Orleans (8"), Pensacola (8"), two CL, six DD
(US had radar but it didn't help because they waited too long, Japanese victory was due to torpedoes)

Battle of Vella Gulf (Aug 1943) *
IJN - 4 destroyers
USN - 6 destroyers
(victory with torpedoes due to successful use of radar by US destroyers)

Battle of Horaniu (Aug 1943) *
IJN - 4 destroyers
USN -4 destroyers
(no warships sunk, 5 x Japanese 'auxiliary ships' sunk)

Naval battle of Vella Lavella (Oct 1943) *
IJN - 9 destroyers
USN - 6 destroyers

Battle of Samar (Oct 1944)
IJN - Yamato (18"), Nagato (16"), Kongo (14"), Haruna (14"), Chokai (8"), Haguro (8"), Kumano (8"), Suzuya (6"), Chikuma (8"), Tone (8"), two CL, 11 DDs
USN - six CVE, three DD, four DE

So that is 13 battles, of which I count 4 in which there wasn't at least an 8" gun armed warship on one or both sides (8 with heavy guns on both sides, 1 with only on one side)
In almost every case, the vast majority of the losses and damage were caused by the heavy guns (8" or larger) and / or the torpedoes.

An Atlanta class Cruiser was nothing to scoff at in a night battle.
View attachment 731867
Fourteen 5" guns on broadside, maybe it couldn't pierce belt armor but the topsides could take quite a beating.

The Atlanta class was a CLAA - a light anti-aircraft cruiser, designed for shooting down planes. They did not do well in surface actions which they were not designed for. The only two which got into surface actions, Atlanta and Juneau, were sunk at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on Nov 1942. Atlanta was crippled by a torpedo and naval gunfire (and later scuttled), Juneau was crippled by a torpedo in the same action and then sunk by an IJN sub (with 100 of her surviving crew tragically abandoned to sharks in the water for 8 days, only 10 eventually being rescued).

BTW, the Japanese often only used 1in plate on their 8" gun turrets so getting shot up by 5in guns was not a good game plan.

As noted, their 8" guns seem to have played a significant role in most of the naval surface engagements during the war.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

(The red asterix in my list up above indicates battles in which heavy (8" or greater) naval guns do not seem to have played a role)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Kuma class - 5 ships. Kitakami & Oi converted to torpedo cruisers in 1941 with reduced gun armament (4x5.5") and 40x24" TT (in 10 quad mounts)

!!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's not unheard of for pilots' first-hand experiences to conflict with the historical record or for authors to make embellishments or errors in their books. Compounding this problem is that many Japanese pilots have had their first-hand accounts translated roughly into English. So what we've read may not be precisely what the Japanese pilots reported.

That said, I'm not familiar with the source that you're quoting but I am familiar with the physical properties of aileron design. As a rule for WW2 aircraft: the more maneuverable an aircraft, the poorer its high-speed turn rate due to the pressure exerted on the ailerons.

I think you should look a little more closely at the Ki-43. This is not an outlier point I'm making or a little known point. Double check you'll find that what I was saying is true.

It's also incorrect that more maneuverable planes inevitably have more trouble locking up controls in a dive. The factors which cause this are somewhat complex but became better understood as the war progressed.