loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack. The Navy were also in the final stages of the first Jet fighter, the so-called Kikka (no code name given), when the war ended
Why wouldn't they have seperate air services. Most nations do...
Here are some examples:
USA
During WW2:
US Army Air Corps
US Navy (Aviation)
US Marine Corps (Aviation)
Actually the USAAC was superceded by the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) in mid 1941. United States Army Air Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its simple. Both the Navy and the Army have different missions and therefore different requirements.
The IJN remains the only land based formation to have sunk battleships incidentally.
Maybe he meant sunk at sea, in which case it's almost true. The only combat sinking of a capital ship at sea by landbased planes besides Prince of Wales and Repluse was the Roma by German landbased bombers using guided bombs.Tirpitz?
Marat?
Just a thought.
Tirpitz?
Marat?
Just a thought.
Hi Parsifal,
>Japanese Army fighters did close the qulality gap with the Navy with their oscars, Tonys Tojos and Franks. Against this the Navy introduced the George and the Jack.
Hm, my impression is that the Army actually was more innovative when it came to fighter designs than the Navy, and quicker to adapt to the realities of war.
At the beginning of the war the Navy was a bit farther ahead of the Army in terms of actual deployment, having replaced the A5M with the A6M while the Army still had the Ki-27 in service, but if you look at the path fighter development took from there, the Army was more innovative than the Navy.
The Ki-43 was about equivalent to the A6M, actually having an inferior armament due to the lack of cannon, but it was fitted with pilot armour which according to China veteran 'Ax' Hiltgen was even superior to the contemporary Mustang's. The Ki-44 was an entirely new concept, abandoning the idea of extreme manoeuvrability in order to gain optimum performance, with the AVG devising a preventive strike at a Ki-44 base to eliminate the danger it posed, and 'Ax' Hiltgen even pointing out that it was the one Japanese fighter that came close to the P-51 in terms of speed, ceiling and flying characteristics.
The Ki 44's performance, while a big step over the Ki-43 (in terms of armament, high speed handling as well), would not be competitive with the Mustang, being somewhat poorer than the Ki-84 iirc.
Then there is the Ki-61, a liquid-cooled V-engined fighter designed along European lines of thinking, with the only compromise being an enlarged high aspect-ratio wing to ensure that the range demands of the Pacific theatre were met, and the Ki-84 which (according to a Japanese enthusiast over on Aces High forum) was the first Nakajima design developed for high-speed combat, with the control forces tuned so that the aircraft could not (easily) be overstressed during high-speed dives, a problem that had plagued the Ki-43 due to it being intended for extreme low-speed manoeuvrability.
The Italian fighters had similar high AR wings. It wasn't just for range, but for take-off performance, climb, and turning ability as well. The preceding Ki-60, roughly based on the He 100, had shorter wings and actually had poorer speed performance in adition to high stall and landing speeds. The Ki-61 was very similar, but with extended wings increasing both area and aspect ratio. (improving overall lift and lift/drag ratio) the main problem with it was the DB 601 derived engine which proved difficult for Japan produce reliably.
The Japanese Navy on the other kept the A6M in service until the capitulation, and only began to add armour very late in the war. Noteworthy fighters introduced during the war were the J2M, which had fairly mediocre performance though the concept of a heavily-armed interceptor could be seen as innovative, and the N1K, which was developed more by accident then by any kind of innovative thinking and still fell short of the performance of the Ki-84 (as far as it's possible to make such a statement from the confusing reports).
The Ki-43 was kept as well and with fewer overall improvments than the Zero. The J2M may have been problematic in its early models, but by the late war models it was the fastest operational Japanese fighter at over 400 mph and with good altitude performance. It also had a fairly heavy armament. Probably the best interceptor they had, and certainly for the IJN.[b/]
So my conclusion is that the Japanese Army was ahead of the Navy in most respects when it came to fighter design ... of course, I'm not an expert on Japanese aircraft, so other opinions are welcome!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)