Japanese Army vs Navy

Which do you think was a better air force?

  • IJA (Impreial Japanese Army Air Force)

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • IJN (Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force)

    Votes: 25 75.8%
  • Total voters
    33

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Koolkitty,

>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.

On one hand, you're undoubtly right, but on the other hand, the Ki-44 must still have been close enough to impress Hiltgen, who flew a P-51 in combat against them.

Of course speed is the dominant performance parameter, but the Ki-44 was quite light and had a powerful engine, so a Ki-44 pilot would be well-equipped to turn the tables on a Mustang pilot by gaining altitude during a fight.

Hiltgen actually suggests that altitude was important when fighting the Ki-61 and "particularly" the Ki-44, while against the Ki-43 and A6M (I'm not sure if he encountered the latter, but we all know that these two types were often confused by Allied pilots) it was just a matter of keeping the speed up.

>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.

Well, it' my impression (from reading between the lines, I admit) that the main reason high aspect-ratio wings were adopted was the desire for range, but you're right that other parameters were favourably affected too.

>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.

From what I've read, this was mainly due to a larger frontal-area fuselage, so it was not the change in wing design that improved the speed of the Ki-61.

>Kawasaki seems to put quite a bit of development into inline engined designs.

They seem to have been in contact with Heinkel, considering that they not only adopted the He 100 design (which interestingly had been licensed to the Imperial Navy, so I'm not sure how it got to be exploited for an Army aircraft), but also experimented with surface condensation cooling and coupled engines (think He 119). Heinkel seems to have enjoyed good success with sales ot Japan in general, including the He 112 fighter.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
>So my conclusion is that the Japanese Army was ahead of the Navy in most respects when it came to fighter design…

Interesting assessment Hohun and one in which I concur.

>Dan Brown on his website points out that the Japanese Army did not only copy the aircraft concept, but also modern German air combat tactics, including the basic "Rotte" formation.

Do you know if the Rotte employed by the Japanese Army units extended to a Schwarm/finger four formation? If so the Army would seem to be ahead of the Navy in tactics as well. I recall reading of the Japanese Navy employing big gaggle, every-man-for-himself tactics. Surely the mutual support tactics of the Army would be superior.

What's your source for 'Ax' Hiltgen's comments?
 
Hi Ponsford,

>Do you know if the Rotte employed by the Japanese Army units extended to a Schwarm/finger four formation?

Here is the relevant link to Dan Ford's site:

Ki-45 Toryu (Dragon Slayer)

Probably interesting beyond the tactical evaluation.

>What's your source for 'Ax' Hiltgen's comments?

Roger Freeman, "Combat Profile: Mustang".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
England
RAF (Royal Air Force)
Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy)
.
Click to expand...

WHAT, was there something on the news I missed!!?

To the best of my knowledge 'England' is still part of the UK! That is - it doesn't have its own seat at the UN. Unless of course you know different.
I think, you will find that the RAF FAA are part of the British Armed Forces.
 

Well not to get into a long and lengthy discussion, but is the Army going to operate 1000s of miles from home, based off of Aircraft Carriers?
 

All other factors being the same the primary advantage for increased aspect ratio is to reduce induced drag -------> range would be the first beneficial derivative of increased AR.

The primary factor (all else being equal) for improved climb, take off performance and turn would be wing/lift loading
 
Can anyone link me to some additional sources or Army pilot accounts? They seem pretty hard to find, most are about the Navy.


But then again these sides reversed, cause the Navy kept its Zeroes to the end, while being a little later supplanted by N1Ks and J2Ms. But on the other hand, the Army was able to dish out less-maneuverable energy fighters earlier than the Navy did, and was able to produce quite alot of Ki-84s, which were pretty feared. The only thing that hampered these efforts was the fact that the Japanese had **** manufacturing quality and capacity at the time, which, I guess, made quality control take the back seat. The Japanese mechanics were probably just not used to handling inline engines, let alone badly-manufactured inline engines. And with the Frank and its Homare, pretty much the same, they were kept grounded due to maintenance/lack of fuel, IIRC.

If you notice, the Navy was good at the start with its Zeros and tactics and all, but towards the end they didn't put up as good a fight as the Army did, because they never really changed their tactics/equipment much.

I heard alot from other places about American pilots having a hard time dealing with Ki-44s, just a shame the Japanese didn't produce enough of them, it seemed to have potential, and seemed mature enough (unlike the Frank/Tony/George)

Well not to get into a long and lengthy discussion, but is the Army going to operate 1000s of miles from home, based off of Aircraft Carriers?
Click to expand...

I saw on wiki that the Army had carriers, and Wikipedia is a very reliable source of info! [citation needed]

But thanks for pointing out the obvious fact that they don't operate from carriers, although the 1000s of miles from home part may be correct, but from land bases. What I really wanted to know was their specific objective, I heard from somewhere that it was meant to support the Army and have a limited air interdiction capability, forgot where I heard that.


...Navy seems to be winning
 
The main reason that the Navy did not have a replacement for the Zeke was that in the first instance, the pressure in 1942 to develop a replacement was simply not there. The Zeke was considered so superior to its opposition, that the need for a replacement was simply not anticipated.

In fact, of course the Zekes superiority was transitory. It was very structurally weak, and without protection. It had sluggish manouverability at altitude, and at speed, and its dive characteristics were substandard. Its cannon ammunition was not good at armour penetration, and a limited supply was carried onboard. It had a prpensity to catch fire.

During the war the Japanese spent some time trying to address some of these deficiencies, whilst at the same time splitting off part of Mitsubishis R&D effort on the Zeke successor, the A7M Sam. The result was that neither strand of R&D (the Zeke updates, and the Zeke replacement) was really satisfactory.

The Zeke upgrades culminated in the A6M8 subtype, which was powered by the 1560 hp Kinsei. The last mark of Zero had improved speed, dive, protection, fire protection, and armament, but was still outclassed by the hellcat IMO.
engine: 1x Mitsubishi Kinsei Model 62 engine [1,560hp at take-off, 1,340hp at 6,890ft, 1,180hp at 19,030ft] w/ 3-bladed constant speed Sumitomo propeller
speed: 356mph at 19,685ft
climb rate: 6min50sec to 19,685ft [26,240ft? 3,140ft/min - Green]
ceiling: 37,075ft
fuel: 610liter internal + 2x 350liter under-wing drop tanks
range:
weight: 4,740lb (empty), 6,945lb (loaded)
armament: 2x 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns, 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 4 cannon w/125rpg, 1x 550lb or 1,100lb bombs, 2x 132lb bombs
number built: 2 prototypes only

The A7M would probably have outperformed the Hellcat, but probably not the Corsair, and of course failed to enter service. Partly this was the result of bad luck, an earthquake caused huge disruption to the testing regime for this type

The army, on the other hand, was completing a number of protypes in 1941-2 culminating in the relatively quick introduction of a number of new types, such as the Ki-44, Ki-43, Ki-61 and the Ki-45 in short order. It would have been interesting to see how these army types would have fared against the mid and late war Zekes.....

With regard to the army carriers (the Type 3TL), they were more aircraft transports more than anything, and were not ever in service as such
 
I read war stories by American pilots in the Pacific know that they could climb to get out of trouble sometimes since most American fighters had a higher flight ceiling than most Japanese planes. Looks like the Japanese Army had much better ceiling than the Japanese Naval planes. That probally surprise a lot of American pilots used to fighting A62M's.

F4F-4
Performance
Maximum speed: 320 mph (290 knots, 515 km/h)
Range: 770 mi (670 nm, 1,240 km)
Service ceiling 39,500 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 1,950 ft/min (9.9 m/s)

F4U-4
Performance
Maximum speed: 446 mph (388 knots, 718 km/h)
Range: 1,005 mi (873 nm, 1,618 km)
Service ceiling 41,500 ft (12,649 m)
Rate of climb: 3,870 ft/min (19.7 m/s)

Hellcat F-6F5
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (380 mph, 610 km/h)
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (380 mph, 610 km/h)
Combat radius: 820 nm (945 mi, 1,520 km)
Service ceiling 37,300 ft (11,370 m)
Rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min (17.8 m/s)


A62M
Performance
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nm, 1,929 mi)
Service ceiling 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)

Ki-43-II
Performance
Maximum speed: 530 km/h (329 mph) at 4,000 m (13,125 ft)
Range: 1,610 km (1,000 mi) combat () 2,575 km (1,600 mi) ferry
Service ceiling 11,200 m (36,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 19.8 m/s (3,900 ft/min)
 
Hi Koolkitty,

> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18

Yohei Hinoki speaking about the "Oscar". October 1981

The "Oscar" was a weak plane. They tried too hard to increase its range, and so made it fragile. It had no speed either. So it was shelved. It had lots of critics, and one of the loudest was Major Katoh. But in April 1941 a decision was made to use it. And it was supplied to Major Katoh's squadron.

Given to those who didn't like it?

Right. That's when our agony began. On 18 May 1941, I think it was, Major Katoh came on a visit. He said he'd been against the plane because he thought that a better one could be made. Now the question was not whether to use it but how to. He didn't complain, he just said that he'd make something out of it.

In the part where the undercarriage retracts there was a crack. It was wide enough to your your little finger into. The plane was a disaster. We didn't want to get into it. I'd heard it was bad, but I hadn't realized it was this bad. I got into it feeling very worried, very unhappy. I was scared.

But the improvements made to it made you feel better about it?

Oh, yes. Major Katoh worked on it day and night. He made what improvements were possible. But to fly it, you had to know what you were doing. If you made a sudden movement, someting would break. But we had been given this weapon to use; we couldn't complain. First we had to learn how to use it.

We went to the Fussa aircraft works. From an early hour a Type 2 plane had been going through combat tactics. It was moving at a tremendous speed. The pilot was Major Katoh. When we saw his display and speed and that nothing went wrong we were ready to follow on.

Our first action was on December 8, over Malaya. The waether was bad, thoug. We could not all keep together. My flight crossed alone to Penang where we saw a single Blenheim. We attacked in turn. When I fired and hit it, strange yellow grains fell from it. Nothing else happened until its tail went and the plane dropped. Then I saw five large planes below and fired at them before turning back.

Boosting the plane's speed produced vibrations. This made aiming erratic. And the weak firepower made it hard to destroy enemy aircraft. It was tiring work to fly it, but it performed well in action. The enemy would run, but giving chase wasn't easy. Our planes were like the old fixed-undercarriage Type 97 ones. The faster we went, the greater the vibration. It was difficult to take aim. And we were slower than the Hurricane. The Oscar could produce bursts of speed, though.

An unexpected characteristic was that some broke up during combat. We lost pilots that way. But from the start it was a sickly plane - attractive lines, but weak. It needed careful handling.

The second version had two cannon, so greater firepower. Its wingtips were clipped, giving it greater strength. And it could now go faster. It was now a plane you could fly with confidence - a great machine.

But when it had become a good attack plane, things were changing. It was now being used for defence, as an interceptor. So again its firepower was insufficient. And it lacked the speed needed for attacking bombers. The Oscar was coming to the end of its times.

When the Americans attacked, they attacked repeatedly. One night they came four times. I went up each time to intercept them, but couldn't do a thing. Next day I thought I could get some sleep. But a message came in. A formation opf 88 planes was over Akyab, flying south. We had only twelve planes. And with their powerful cannon, we wouldn't be to to get near them.

While I was thinking over plans, I flew out over the Indian ocean. I saw enemy planes there. They were not in formation. I went ahead of them, turned, and attacked from below. I aimed at the roots of their wings. I attacked seven planes without getting any answering fire. Two started to fall. The other five moved into formation. The rest were out of sight. But as I moved to attack the five, I saw that the others had formed up and were coming back to help their comrades.

This impressed me, and that's when I became careless. I didn't think of other fighters until - bang! - I was hit. I'd been hit from behind. It was as if my right leg had been clubbed. From ten centimeters below the knee, it was gone. Out of habit, I pressed down with it and somehow banked right. I sensed other planes were coming but I was now half gone. The cockpit was black withoil; my face was all goose pimples. I tied a scarf around my leg to stop the bleeding and headed back. I managed to land at Rangoon, where we had a hospital. The plane was riddled with holed from 13-mm cannon fire from P-51s. The flaps wouldn't work, but somehow the landing gear came down. I landed, the plane stopped, and I passed out.
 
Hi Parsifal,

>The main reason that the Navy did not have a replacement for the Zeke was that in the first instance, the pressure in 1942 to develop a replacement was simply not there. The Zeke was considered so superior to its opposition, that the need for a replacement was simply not anticipated.

Hm, are you sure about that? Normal procedure was to develop a successor for a plane as soon as series production of the latest type started. The developement times were so long that if you started to develop a type when the need arose, you'd have the first examples flying only a year after you needed it ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

My point was that it still comes down to different missions which mean different requirements.
 

Hi Henning

I wont say Im "sure" about it however in effect, the delay that occurred in the development of a replacement and or effective upgrades on the existing types is self evident.

Overall the Japanese assumed that the war would be of short duration, with the US seeking peace terms after only a few months of battle. If this had eventuated, there was no real need for an urgent replacement to be developed for the Zero. When the war did not pan out as planned, the IJN was left scrambling to seek a durable replacement for the Zero, which was essentially an offensive weapon, being forced into a defensive battle.

There were actually three replacements developed for the early marks of Zero. In the first instance there was the mid and late war improved Zekes, which featured in increasing proportions greater attention to defensive measures. In the second instance there was the A7M Sam, which I dont think began development work until after Midway. Finally there was the J2M, not a carrier based plane, but intended as a defensive weapon to be deployed on the far flung unsinkable carriers that formed the defensive barrier around the Japanese empire. This too ended in failure, the "Jack" was never built in sufficient numbers to fulfil this "air garrison " role
 

Actually they had a try, at first IJA wnat to operate J2M Raiden instead of the heavy fighter plan which under development. However, it didn't macth the requirment and too many problems.

When near the war end, IJN try it again. They got some Ki-84s and tested.
 

With the Hellcat or Corsair, possibly. With the Wildcat (even the FM-2) it would not be true. The Wildcat (particularly the F4F-4) couldn't keep up in a climb, neither could the P-40. (some models worse than others)

The only distinct performance advantage of the Wildcat over the Zero was the diving speed. (both acceleration and max) The P-40 tended to have a level speed advantage as well. (depending on the circumstances and models)
 
IJN. The question was phrased 'better air force'. And an air force is planes, and also training, logistics,transport, planning...

...which means that the IJN moves ahead by a chopstick.
 
Just was reading over my lunch hour a book titled "Sea Of Thunder". There is a paragraph in one chapter talking about the American invasion of the Philippines from Japan's point of view. The IJN almost never relied on air support from the IJA, as the IJA and IJN almost never communicated, and the IJA pilots were not trained to fly over water. At this point in the book, the IJN only had a rag tag group of various planes to counter the invasion by the Americans, but the Army had more planes, but were not figured into any plan to try to turn back the invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register