Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?
*standard operating procedure
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was it ever a SOP* by IJN to rearm and refuel it's attack aircraft (dive- and torpedo-bombers) on the flying deck before mid-1942?
*standard operating procedure
It was 'not suitable for aerial combat' according to the Luftwaffe/RLM who probably had a greater interest in producing a competitive fighter than Wikipedia.
The Germans produced far too many different types of aircraft from 1933 almost until the end of the war. Repeated attempts at rationalisation failed, there were too many interested parties and cronyism was endemic to the Nazi system of administration. One of the few smart decisions made was to adopt a DB 601 powered version of the Bf 109 as the primary Luftwaffe fighter not adopt the He 112. That decision effectively denied the He 112 the engine it needed to have been more competitive ( the comment above was made on a Jumo powered version).
Last edited:
fubar57
General
Kevin J
Banned
That's where the info is.
fubar57
General
From another book...
Including the info about He 112's fuel tankage? If so, please quote it, or concede the point.
Kevin J
Banned
Kevin J
Banned
That extra 100 miles is the difference between getting to London and back or ditching in the English Channel.
No info about fuel tankage.
Do you mean with the Jumo 210?
That extra 100 miles would give the RAF a better chance of shooting you down. Do you want to take on a 360 mph fighter in an aircraft giving away 50 mph and one that the Germans themselves considered lacked manoeuvrability.
Kevin J
Banned
Obviously you need the He 112B with a DB601A. As for manoeuvrability, wiki says that they were manoeuvrable, but complex to maintain.
You know and I know (and so does most everyone here) that that all of the above is true. With all due respect, my friend, and leaving ignorant internet warriors aside, even the world's best carrier fighter of '40-'42, which the Zero undoubtedly was, is capable of having a weakness turn into a fatal flaw when circumstances change. A fatal flaw is not an immutable permanent feature of a combat aircraft, but the result of a weakness in its design being exploited by the enemy to create unacceptable attrition. It only becomes a fatal flaw when circumstances allow that weakness to be exploited. A superb machine, I'd love to have an A6M to start my (dream) personal collection (as long as no one is shooting at me!).
Cheers,
Wes
Good question. Has anybody seen any info on this? I would venture to guess that prior to 12/7/41 no Japanese carrier had ever faced a credible airborne threat, but had launched numerous strikes ashore. It's hard to imagine all that available real estate being ignored.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Which loses you 200 Km of range.
Kevin J
Banned
On a Db600a but the Db601 had fuel injection so you should recover that loss.
Admiral Beez
Captain
A ww2 fighter plane is going to get shot at. It needs to be able to take what it can dish out.
Imagine an A6M analog in a medium battle tank. You'd have a gun equal to your enemy, superior speed and off road ability, but nearly zero armour. Essentially you're in a M-18 Hellcat fighting the PzKpfw V Panther.
fubar57
General
".....In the Battle of Arracourt, two platoons of Hellcats — eight in total — from the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion moved swiftly into ambush positions behind a low ridge on a foggy day, only their turrets poking over the rise. When a battalion of Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade entered their sights, they knocked out 19 for the loss of three of their own number...."
Pure conjecture unless you have the figures to support it.
There is a reason that the tankage of the Bf 109 was increased when the DB 601 was fitted.
There were no DB 601s available after the adoption of the Bf 109. They were all earmarked principally for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 (which obviously required twice as many) and even then the RLM argued about the allocation for the next few years.
We had this debate in the Whirlwind thread. Wars are fought with finite resources and painful decisions have to be made. Choosing the Bf 109 over the Heinkel was the correct decision.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,977
- Jun 25, 2013
A major point of tactics -- and ambushes are sound tactics -- is to minimize one's weaknesses relative to an enemy. It would still be smart tactics had the US Army had a time machine and was able to replace the M18s with Abrams M1A tanks. It just would be superfluous.
Glider
Captain
A couple of points
a) 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG was quite a decent amount of firepower for a good part of the war
b) Another reason for the Japanese loss of pilots was the reluctance to use parachutes in the early part of the war. I have read a number of stories where they either didn't carry them, or had to be ordered to wear them. Remember the greatest fear of a Japanese combatant was to be captured, and the use of a parachute significantly increases those chances.
c) Whilst your observation that the Japanese aircraft tended to be less well protected is true, to rely on gun footage to prove the case is 'flakey'. I have seen a number of footage films of British, German and American aircraft catching fire.
