Maneuverability vs Speed

The IJN's I-400 class submarines were unrivaled until the advent of nuclear submarines and could carry three attack aircraft in it's hangar.

The KI-45 was one of the best looking heavy fighters of the war (as far as ones that saw combat, otherwise the KI-83 takes it, hands down), the KI-84 was not only a good looking fighter, but dangerous as hell to the best of any Allied fighter type.

Judging a nation's ability to competantly wage war based on the looks of aircraft aesthetics doesn't hold water.

The British had some fugly aircraft, the Germans had a few questionable designs (Bv141, anyone?) the U.S. had a few howlers and let's not get started with some Soviet designs.

GrauGeist said:

The IJN's I-400 class submarines were unrivaled until the advent of nuclear submarines...

Click to expand...

It's seemingly gargantuan range alone (I am coming with with 20000km-30000km for the ranges of other submarines vs the I-400 class's >65000km) makes me inclined to agree, I guess.

GrauGeist said:

The KI-45 was one of the best looking heavy fighters of the war (as far as ones that saw combat, otherwise the KI-83 takes it, hands down), the KI-84 was not only a good looking fighter, but dangerous as hell to the best of any Allied fighter type.

Click to expand...

The Ki-83 from certain angles, I agree, though its contours are a bit round, and in this area, the Ki-45 is slightly better. Some Ki-45s did feature with some striking camouflage, I must admit. The Ki-84 is a radial-engined fighter, and such fighters are...'a bit basic', so to speak? I'm not sure, I haven't given it much thought until now. My knowledge of aerodynamics is also not the best; I've been occupied with other things, and still am largely. Aside from that, performance of both aircraft is also slightly underwhelming, more so for the former.

GrauGeist said:

Judging a nation's ability to competantly wage war based on the looks of aircraft aesthetics doesn't hold water.

Click to expand...

Regarding aesthetics, I should have clarified that it was an admission my simplicity, that I generally like flashy/"weird" designs, and performance, especially engine power and speed, are significant criteria in my simple interest.

GrauGeist said:

The British had some fugly aircraft, the Germans had a few questionable designs (Bv141, anyone?) the U.S. had a few howlers and let's not get started with some Soviet designs.

Click to expand...

I guess so, though now that I have seen images of the Bv-141, I say that it has some charm in its bizarre design, and I forgot the name of the Russian fighter I saw on a gallery of this forum, but it was the sleek, elongated design of that inline-engined design that inspired my message in part.

PAT303 said:

Smart enough to design a great fighter then smart enough to design a great strategy in which to continue it's development throughout the war like everyone else did.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point. There's a difference between grand strategy and drawing-board smarts, and also the ability to produce great designs and produce great numbers. Intelligent behavior is not overarching; a genius at one thing can be mighty stupid at another. Let's not oversimplify.

JoblinTheGoblin said:

It's seemingly gargantuan range alone (I am coming with with 20000km-30000km for the ranges of other submarines vs the I-400 class's >65000km) makes me inclined to agree, I guess.

Click to expand...

I may have mentioned this before, but tje I-400 class subs were huge, too.

For comparison, the I-400s were about 40 feet longer than a USN Fletcher class destroyer.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Intelligent behavior is not overarching; a genius at one thing can be mighty stupid at another. Let's not oversimplify.

Click to expand...

Depends on the person. The presence or lack of certain psychological conditions may result in varying deficiencies and strengths, but otherwise, many types of intellectual skills have some non-negligible correlation with each other, the g factor, so to speak. This is a discussion for a different topic, but like you said, no oversimplification.

GrauGeist said:

I may have mentioned this before, but tje I-400 class subs were huge, too.

For comparison, the I-400s were about 40 feet longer than a USN Fletcher class destroyer.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Edit: A 'regular' intelligent person will generally have similar capacity across the board, but well, time and resources are limited, so some skills will definitely be further developed than others.

GrauGeist said:

I may have mentioned this before, but tje I-400 class subs were huge, too.

For comparison, the I-400s were about 40 feet longer than a USN Fletcher class destroyer..

Click to expand...

Largest in history (size and displacement) until the Washington class SSBNs went to sea, IIRC.

As it turns out, the Japanese did break a speed record, with a prototype submarine, Submarine No.71, with a speed of ~21 knots against the then unsurpassed record ~14 knots of the WWI-era British R-Class and ~18 knots average of some German U-Boats. I guess that's one area for the Japanese where speed was a priority.

JoblinTheGoblin said:

Depends on the person. The presence or lack of certain psychological conditions may result in varying deficiencies and strengths, but otherwise, many types of intellectual skills have some non-negligible correlation with each other, the g factor, so to speak. This is a discussion for a different topic, but like you said, no oversimplification.

Click to expand...

Well, my convo with P PAT303 was specifically about why a country might lose a war while still designing good kit. And wars have so many intermingling factors that asking why a nation which could design good fighters (or ships, or tanks, etc) might also be getting its ass handed home is over-simplifying the question.

In perspective, the Germans had Tigers and Panthers, Me-262s, and V-2s -- none of which the Western Allies could match (except perhaps tanks, by early 1945, but in what numbers?), yet they still got their asses handed to them by dint of things like access to resources, national policy, production capacity, and grand strategy.

Asking why, if the Japanese fighters were so good they weren't winning, seems to ignore this elephant in the room.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Asking why, if the Japanese fighters were so good they weren't winning, seems to ignore this elephant in the room.

Click to expand...

I guess you're right, though that line of thought leads to the usual conclusion people have, that the war was ultimately unwinnable for Japan.

JoblinTheGoblin said:

I guess you're right, though that line of thought leads to the usual conclusion people have, that the war was ultimately unwinnable for Japan.

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, it was, especially after the attack at Pearl Harbor sank not only American battleships but American isolationism. But we're getting far afield.

Germany and Japan both gambled on a strategy where initial overwhelming victories would keep adversaries at bay by negotiating a favorable peace. In other words, they were counting on a short, violent war with a favorable outcome and were ill prepared for a protracted war that taxed their limited resources.

That line of thinking required the adversaries to go along with the script.

With Germany (and Italy), Britain was supposed to either remain neutral or ally with Germany.

With Japan, the U.S. was to have come to the negotiating table after Japan flexed on Pearl Harbor.

In both cases, the Axis woefully underestimated the bigger picture.

GrauGeist said:

Germany and Japan both gambled on a strategy where initial overwhelming victories would keep adversaries at bay by negotiating a favorable peace. In other words, they werw xountung on a short, violent war with a favorable outcome and were ill prepared for a protracted war that taxed their limited resources.

That line of thinking required the adversaries to go along with the script.

With Germany (and Italy), Britain was supposed to either remain neutral or ally with Germany.

With Japan, the U.S. was to have come to the negotiating table after Japan flexed on Pearl Harbor.

In both cases, the Axis woefully underestimated the bigger picture.

Click to expand...

And don't forget the USSR. In all three cases, the Axis powers underestimated the will of the civilian populace to see it through.

Thumpalumpacus said:

And don't forget the USSR. In all three cases, the Axis powers underestimated the will of the civilian populace to see it through.

Click to expand...

Seems like this *may* apply to a current event, too.

The aggressor counted on a short, violent victory in order to force to victim to the bargaining table, but woefully under estimated that nation's resolve as well as not factoring in a protracted conflict.

It's interesting how history repeats itself, but I digress...

GrauGeist said:

Seems like this *may* apply to a current event, too.

The aggressor counted on a short, violent victory in order to force to victim to the bargaining table, but woefully under estimated that nation's resolve as well as not factoring in a protracted conflict.

It's interesting how history repeats itself, but I digress...

Click to expand...

Don't underestimate national morale. The Brits were beaten just as bad as the French in 1940. They were, as Pa Thump used to say, "too stupid to quit".

Or as my Grandfather (an old Montana territory cowboy) said: "they got their back up".

Thumpalumpacus said:

Well, my convo with P PAT303 was specifically about why a country might lose a war while still designing good kit. And wars have so many intermingling factors that asking why a nation which could design good fighters (or ships, or tanks, etc) might also be getting its ass handed home is over-simplifying the question.

In perspective, the Germans had Tigers and Panthers, Me-262s, and V-2s -- none of which the Western Allies could match (except perhaps tanks, by early 1945, but in what numbers?), yet they still got their asses handed to them by dint of things like access to resources, national policy, production capacity, and grand strategy.

Asking why, if the Japanese fighters were so good they weren't winning, seems to ignore this elephant in the room.

Click to expand...

I think you answered it. Quality vs quantity, unless that quality is at least two orders of magnitude greater, will almost always lose.

The reason why the axis powers lost was production. The USA produced more material in 2 years then the entire rest of the world combined.

We built freighters faster than the subs could sink them. I asked a German paratrooper when he knew Germany had lost the war and he said it was after he was captured and driven past 10km of fuel. He had never seen that much fuel anywhere.

Add to that at Cassino, when they would fire a single mortar round, it would be answered by hundreds.

We literally buried them under equipment. Knock out 5 shermans? No problem, we have 50 more to replace them.

The Germans didn't.

All of that is true, but I think it slightly overstates the quality issue. I think the British would have lost the Battle of Britain without the Spitfire - which they and the Germans knew was just as good as any German plane - and they may have lost in North Africa without the Kittyhawk. The Wildcat and the P-40, and the SBD though not as astonishingly good as the Zero at least in the early days of the war, were good enough to help win some key victories.

The Soviets suffered immense, appalling losses, but in their recovery and counterattack, did need their Yak and their Pe-2 and Il-2 as well. It was important to catch up.

The mistake I do see the Axis making vis a vis weapons designs, is that they started the war with quite good weapons, a bit ahead of most of the Allied kit, which combined with superior strategy and training meant they were way ahead initially. But they seem to have coasted a bit on that and lagged badly in upgrading some of this kit, especially the Japanese. The Ki-43 and the A6M2 were excellent, world class fighters in my opinion in 1942. But it took too long to upgrade them, and their small deficit in speed became more significant over time. By 1943 the P-38 and faster marks of P-40 were able, with their adjustments to tactics, to hit and run with increasing efficacy and, together with the improved tactics and excellent training of the Wildcat pilots, starting to inflict casualties at a rate which was annihilating the core cadre of aircrews which the Japanese couldn't replace. They did eventually upgrade the A6M to the -5 which was good, but that took way too long. It would have been deadly in early 1943, it was too late in 1944, and the newer fighters like Ki-61, Ki-44, N1K1, J2M and Ki-84 while very good, took way too long to get deployed in any numbers.

For the Germans you see this with tanks, where they briefly started falling behind a bit in 1942. The Panther and Tiger were excellent but there weren't enough of the former until 1944. And also I'd say with the Bf 109. Not so much that it didn't keep up in terms of performance, because it certainly did (and a bit more), but because it had a strategic flaw in it's range limitation (particularly a problem in places like North Africa and the Mediterranean). The Ju 87 similarly ran into a wall on speed, by late 1942 it was clearly too slow to be safe (especially since none of the German fighters could escort it for long strikes). The Ju 88 was a possible replacement but it wasn't as accurate and it wasn't fast enough either. The 262 really could have been a game changer but it took too long to get into production as a fighter, and was never available in enough numbers.

As far as aesthetics though, I'd say, look at some models rather than just 2d images. Sure maybe all the Japanese radial engines look the same, but I have 1/72 models of most of the mid-war tactical aircraft in my office, the Ki-43 is to my eye one of the most elegant designs, right up there with the Spitfire, and the A6M isn't too far behind. Those are both beautiful birds.

For me, it's a combination of both physical appearance and maximum level flight speed (though climb rate and maximum altitude are also implied with the consideration given to high performance), which is why I don't think much of the Ki-43 and A6M. Regardless of any merits, because of my subjective preferences, the A6M and Ki-43 look naked next to something like the Corsair (slightly larger, and also happens to sport a long nose) or razorback P-47 (with its power). God I love razorback designs. I'm not entirely sure why. Edit: Upon checking out some images of the P-51A, I remembered why. Long noses/fuselages and/or large bodies (as well as choice of color), that's what does it for me.

P-47, especially the early marks, looks ugly as hell to me, though it did end up being a good design in the long run. Some of the late models look a bit more 'sporty'



Slim and elegant


Not slim, or elegant

JoblinTheGoblin said:

For me, it's a combination of both physical appearance and maximum level flight speed (though climb rate and maximum altitude are also implied with the consideration given to high performance), which is why I don't think much of the Ki-43 and A6M. Regardless of any merits, because of my subjective preferences, the A6M and Ki-43 look naked next to something like the Corsair (slightly larger, and also happens to sport a long nose)

Click to expand...

Good bit larger, but also a much more late war design. You are comparing 1941 planes with 1943 planes.

For the later war it's more like