Maneuverability vs Speed

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow that's really interesting about the depth charges.

As for mis-use of tech - well that kind of goes with the territory. There is always a lag both in training and policy when you make new tech. The Germans arguably mis-used their jets and ramjets and rockets

Right. Several American admirals had a serious distrust of radar, and either didn't use it, or put their ships with best radar at the back of linear formations, leading to both Cape Esperance and Tassafaronga being completely Charlie Foxtrot.

 

[Gary Cain]

The whole idea was that the USA make their own, and it is perfectly simple and normal. They were given design, blueprints and an example of a working engine, made to those designs and blueprints. There are two things you have to do, get the engine working, and some things are much easier when you have the actual thing there in front of you, not figuring it out from a drawing. The second is getting the aircraft working, which needs an engine, when you wreck the only engine you have doing tests you wait until your people figure out how to make them or request another. The delivery of a working engine is normal with license production, Rolls Royce delivered working engines to Packard, how else do you prove the thing works. Jet engines delivered to USA were not for licensed production, because the intention was for the USA to develop and make their own. That was the lend lease agreement.

Oh, I understand that, it was the wiki entry I was questioning.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

This sounds like the kind of pranks the guys who eventually began the CAF (then Confederate Air Force) would pull. They. and many of the pilots had heard of the Lockheed test pilot pulling the Gorilla mask prank while flying the P-80. The accounts in the book, can' t remember if it was Milo Bircham or Tony LeVier, told of diving into a formation training flight of USMC F4Us supervised by an instructor, scattering the flight and flying close enough to be seen wearing his Gorilla mask, smoking a cigar, and wearing a derby hat. Apparently one of the students reported it to the newspapers and there was much laughing to be had.

yes I believe it was CAF

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

My previous joke involving the "random media" slideshow that one should be able to find on the main page with the default theme and UI...crashed and burned on its very first flight...well, that's one good thing going for Japanese aircraft, they usually didn't crash and burn right after takeoff... Honestly, if I could rate my own posts I would give my earlier post a disagree for that "joke" alone...

Moving on from that burnt out wreck...

The Italians and to some extent the Soviets also focused a great deal on maneuverability. So did this British and Americans - the Spitfire, Hurricane, P-36 and P-40 were all quite maneuverable fighters. It's just the Japanese surpassed them, and not at the expense of speed. The A6M wasn't the fastest fighter in the world in 1941 or 1942 but it was certainly not the slowest, it was about as fast as major fighter types like the Hurricane and Bf 110, and faster than the MC.200 and the I-16. The limited speed was due mainly to having a less powerful engine. The Japanese were indeed somewhat behind on aircraft engines compared to the British, Germans, and US.

But the A6M was certainly competitive with fighters anywhere in the world when it first arrived, and was the only major fighter type I know of with a 1,000 mile range at that time. The range really matters a lot because it confers an operational and a strategic flexibility which acts like a force multiplier, and not only if you are fighting in the Pacific or China.

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you have laid out, but said points still imply that Japan did continue to sacrifice speed, if not for maneuverability, then for range (smaller, weaker engines with less weight and less complexity).

I never said anything about a "12:1 kill ratio". But the Japanese forces did not just fight in China. They cleared out the British from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaya, the Dutch from the Netherlands East Indies, and the Americans from the Philippines, all in a matter of weeks. In the process decimating British, Dutch and American fighters, including P-40s, Hurricanes, F2As and others. I don't know what the exact ratio was, but it was very high, as in, all of the Western air forces on Philippines, Java and Malaya were wiped out in a short period of time, and even Darwin was soon being bombed. To wit, as late as 1943, the A6M proved quite formidable against Spitfire Mk Vs too. So there is no reason to assume they were inferior to the best fighters in the world at that time, in my opinion.

I brought up the kill ratio to ensure that it wasn't being used to try and make the case for the Zero's apparent superiority. I know they didn't fight in China, but the beginnings of the plane's reputation lay in its overwhelming victories against subpar Chinese aircraft. The colonial troops of the European powers also have a poor reputation from what I've seen, though I've heard that experienced fighter pilots from Europe were unprepared to dogfight with their Japanese counterparts, whether or not this was early, mid, or late war, I can't say for certain.

Duralumin and similar alloys were in wide use among the major aircraft manufacturing nations.

Alright? I've not disputed that in any way whatsoever, and my admittedly awkward placement of range was in regards to the aircraft itself, not the material.

That is a matter of opinion, and that opinion was not shared by pilots facing them in 1942. And without meaning to be rude, you don't come across as highly informed on the subject of Japanese aviation. The capabilities of the A6M were extraordinary and world class, and they clearly enabled swift victories everywhere they were encountered. It was only after superior tactics and improved aircraft were developed that the US began to pull ahead of them.

I don't think you actually have good understanding of what the training skills of the Japanese were, or which factors contributed to their victories.

Extremely high and specific standards(to a detrimental degree), long flight hours, and prior experience in China (if any), contributed to the relatively high skill of the Japanese pilots, mainly those of the navy, who could bring out the full potential of the Zero, among a number of other aircraft and make it appear to be a better aircraft than it actually was. Am I wrong? Is this description too simplistic? These world class fighters, and their world class pilots, were neck to neck with "inferior" F4Fs with pilots having flown for less hours, certainly with less experience in wartime conditions. The lack of preparedness on the part of the Allies, coupled with and bolstered by underestimation, incompetence, and indecision (readiness should have been higher with radar on hand), contributed significantly to Japanese victories. Without the element of surprise, with colonial garrisons fully strengthened to European standards in terms of both equipment and skill, how far could the Japanese have gotten?

I call B.S. Inferior to whom? What battleship was superior to the Yamato?

Due to its sheer size and armor, the Yamato-class would have been difficult to sink by any battleship of the era in a one-on-one fight, but the Iowa existed, with faster speed, better shells, better steel design (but not necessarily more durable), better radar, and the ability to shoot while moving. As other people have said, battleships were largely rendered obsolete by aircraft carriers regardless.

And when did that happen precisely?

Developments towards practical SLBMs began a decade after the war's conclusion, but there were "not unpromising" efforts by the Germans to launch V2 rockets from containers towed by submarines. It would certainly appear to be superior to dainty floatplanes, but this setup itself does appear to be somewhat cumbersome, and German attempts at rocket and missile submarines as a whole appeared to have been delayed, if not less successful (particularly in terms of accuracy), though Japan's own submarine aircraft carriers also had little impact, and, with future developments in SLBMs, some involving German scientists and engineers, little potential.

Obviously they were. The US, a much larger country with vastly more resources, spent an enormous amount of effort, money, and casualties for three years to defeat them.

The US had two fronts on virtually opposite ends of the world to fight, and a "Europe first" strategy. Japan, being an insular nation with a fairly large population, would have naturally been difficult to invade. This geographical attribute was also a factor complicating the prospects of a successful Operation Sealion back in Europe.

I forgot to note that the I am skeptical of your assessment that the B7A would be excessively vulnerable to AAA, considering that it had equivalent to or superior performance to the A-36, SB2C, P-40, Ju-88, Pe-2, Hurricane IV, TBF etc. all of which were successfully used as strike aircraft, dive bombers or fighter-bombers through the end of the war. It is, as I said, clearly superior to the Ju-87, being ~100 mph faster, and having three to five times the range (depending on Ju 87 variant). I believe it also out-ranged all of the other dive bombers, tactical fighters and fighter bombers, even arguably the P-51D.

And on that note, I also think B7A competes pretty well as a strike aircraft with the more modern fighter bombers such as P-51, P-38, P-47, F4U, F6F, Fw 190, Typhoon etc. It was not as fast at high altitude, but it was quite fast at lower altitudes and extremely agile, had better range than all of the above except maybe the P-51, and since it could dive bomb, it was likely much more accurate as a bomber. And none of those fighters, so far as I know, B7A could carry a torpedo. The closest competitor on that level would be a Beaufighter.

Air strikes were quite risky for pilots of just about all of the strike aircraft in wide use during the latter half of the war, but the B7A was armored, fast, pretty well armed (two 20mm cannon) and strongly built, and had excellent agility and handling, which is not something you can say for all the Allied aircraft on this list.

An aircraft like that would have been particularly helpful in the naval strike role for the Germans, such as during the conquest of Sicily and Italy. They did try to use missiles, and sunk a couple of ships, but the clunky Do-217 bombers which launched them were swiftly wiped out, and did nowhere near the kind of carnage that the D3A inflicted in the Pacific. B7A could both dive bomb and carry torpedoes.

It's armor could perhaps have helped, as well as its agility to some degree, but the inherent risk that came with its role as a dive bomber (namely, lower altitudes), and its slower level flight speed, could have left it vulnerable to boom and zoom tactics by good high-altitude aircraft, something I forgot to add.

As for the matter of older US aircraft carrier designs, the US were flying faster, heavier, carrier planes throughout the mid-late war, something the Japanese never really did.

 

[WARSPITER]

Going back to Russian vs Germany, without lend lease the Soviets may have stopped the Germans in 1942, maybe not.

What the Soviets could not do was drive the Germans out in 1943-44-45.
What is over looked a lot is not the number of tanks and trucks and aircraft supplied but the amount of raw materials.
Steel, both normal and armor plate.
Fuel.
Food.
clothing/shoes.
Explosives for shell and bomb filling.
Propellents for small arms ammo and for artillery shells.
Radios and radio parts
raw chemicals.
There are several thousands of items that were sent (some make little sense, like floor wax) and sometimes even 10-20% more "stuff" than a country can supply itself makes all the difference.

The Soviets did make a lot of stuff but trying to drive the Germans out with way less ammunition and food/basic supplies either would not have happened or taken much longer, And the Soviets' were running out of men in 1945.

Also be very careful of some statics. There was one claim that LL only supplied less that 10% of the calories that the Soviet Army was using.
But calories alone do not tell the whole story. Most of the Soviet army walked, and in winter the human body needs more calories (and different kinds) than in summer.
Proteins and fats are needed to keep an army marching on it's feet healthy enough to keep marching for weeks. Or to survive in winter weather. You can't do it on bread alone.

Zhukov in a post war interview stated categorically that the USSR would have lost the war in 1942 without lend lease. Aluminium was
particularly crucial as there was no way of producing it between April and October 1942 due to the last main smelter being relocated.

Aircraft and tanks needed aluminium (Soviet diesel tank engines were alloy and needed a fast increase in numbers - piddling around
changing to another engine wasn't something they had time for).

TNT and powder for ammunition was another boon from lend lease - fighting at Stalingrad etc would have been a lot harder if only
50% of the ammunition used had been available.

The biggest morale lifter was food supplied - especially fats and food containing them. Most of these types went to feeding children.
It's very hard to tell your troops to go forward and save the Motherland while at the same time giving them the list of people at home
who died of starvation in the last week.

There are other examples of the importance of lend lease - these are some main ones.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

My previous joke involving the "random media" slideshow that one should be able to find on the main page with the default theme and UI...crashed and burned on its very first flight...well, that's one good thing going for Japanese aircraft, they usually didn't crash and burn right after takeoff... Honestly, if I could rate my own posts I would give my earlier post a disagree for that "joke" alone...

Moving on from that burnt out wreck...


I don't necessarily disagree with the points you have laid out, but said points still imply that Japan did continue to sacrifice speed, if not for maneuverability, then for range (smaller, weaker engines with less weight and less complexity).

I brought up the kill ratio to ensure that it wasn't being used to try and make the case for the Zero's apparent superiority. I know they didn't fight in China, but the beginnings of the plane's reputation lay in its overwhelming victories against subpar Chinese aircraft. The colonial troops of the European powers also have a poor reputation from what I've seen, though I've heard that experienced fighter pilots from Europe were unprepared to dogfight with their Japanese counterparts, whether or not this was early, mid, or late war, I can't say for certain.

Alright? I've not disputed that in any way whatsoever, and my admittedly awkward placement of range was in regards to the aircraft itself, not the material.

Extremely high and specific standards(to a detrimental degree), long flight hours, and prior experience in China (if any), contributed to the relatively high skill of the Japanese pilots, mainly those of the navy, who could bring out the full potential of the Zero, among a number of other aircraft and make it appear to be a better aircraft than it actually was. Am I wrong? Is this description too simplistic? These world class fighters, and their world class pilots, were neck to neck with "inferior" F4Fs with pilots having flown for less hours, certainly with less experience in wartime conditions. The lack of preparedness on the part of the Allies, coupled with and bolstered by underestimation, incompetence, and indecision (readiness should have been higher with radar on hand), contributed significantly to Japanese victories. Without the element of surprise, with colonial garrisons fully strengthened to European standards in terms of both equipment and skill, how far could the Japanese have gotten?

Due to its sheer size and armor, the Yamato-class would have been difficult to sink by any battleship of the era in a one-on-one fight, but the Iowa existed, with faster speed, better shells, better steel design (but not necessarily more durable), better radar, and the ability to shoot while moving. As other people have said, battleships were largely rendered obsolete by aircraft carriers regardless.

Developments towards practical SLBMs began a decade after the war's conclusion, but there were "not unpromising" efforts by the Germans to launch V2 rockets from containers towed by submarines. It would certainly appear to be superior to dainty floatplanes, but this setup itself does appear to be somewhat cumbersome, and German attempts at rocket and missile submarines as a whole appeared to have been delayed, if not less successful (particularly in terms of accuracy), though Japan's own submarine aircraft carriers also had little impact, and, with future developments in SLBMs, some involving German scientists and engineers, little potential.

The US had two fronts on virtually opposite ends of the world to fight, and a "Europe first" strategy. Japan, being an insular nation with a fairly large population, would have naturally been difficult to invade. This geographical attribute was also a factor complicating the prospects of a successful Operation Sealion back in Europe.


It's armor could perhaps have helped, as well as its agility to some degree, but the inherent risk that came with its role as a dive bomber (namely, lower altitudes), and its slower level flight speed, could have left it vulnerable to boom and zoom tactics by good high-altitude aircraft, something I forgot to add.

As for the matter of older US aircraft carrier designs, the US were flying faster, heavier, carrier planes throughout the mid-late war, something the Japanese never really did.

Ok. Self assessment request. Would you say that you are well read on Japanese aviation and warfare during WW2?

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Ok. Self assessment request. Would you say that you are well read on Japanese aviation and warfare during WW2?

I guess I would say I my knowledge of the subject is above that of the general population, if only because, from what I've seen, most people wouldn't really know of any WWII Japanese planes besides the Zero, and maybe the D3A. However, to answer your question directly, not necessarily...if only because by well-read I assume somewhere close to a university/scholarly level, and I wouldn't go that far. I am not studying it in any formal capacity. I also haven't yet read a book on the conflict. It's partially the reason why I made this thread, inquiring about Japanese air doctrine and the seemingly inferior level flight speeds of their aircraft.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ok thanks for being honest.

I think that you'll get more out of asking questions here if you do a little homework first. If you don't want to read books, these days there are a lot of good youtube videos etc.

A lot of the things you are suggesting just aren't real or accurate. I, and others, are trying to answer politely but it's getting kind of silly.

As far as the Japanese racking up kills on the Chinese and then a few 'colonial troops' with inferior planes,

Battles in China included fights against Russian pilots with for the time (1930s) fairly modern kit on both sides. The Soviet planes used there (by both Chinese and Russian pilots) like the I-16 and I-153 were advanced for that time - they are the same aircraft that the Germans were cutting their teeth against in the Condor Legion in Spain also in the 1930s.

That said, most Japanese navy pilots, with a few exceptions, did not have combat experience in China. The A6M and A5M were battle tested there, much as the Bf 109 was tested in spain, but in both cases on a very small scale.

The early overwhelming Japanese victories in the Pacific were mainly against planes like the Hawker Hurricane, Curtis P-36 and P-40, and Brewster F2A, and a little bit later F4F, P-39. These were actually the same types of fighters being used by the French (P-36), English (Hurricane, P-40), and Russians (Hurricane, P-40, P-39) which were being used with some success to fight the Germans in Europe and North Africa.

The earliest German victories in Russia, by the way, were by then largely against obsolescent or somewhat inferior types - I-15, I-153, I-16 (used successfully in China and the Spanish Civil War, were obsolete in 1941). Others like the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3 and MiG-3 were simply flawed or incomplete designs, and often flown by very inexperienced pilots, and for example lacking in radios. Even the better Soviet designs such as Yak-1 were so fraught with production difficulties, in part due to the Soviets having to move their factories to the other side of the Ural mountains (in some cases to open air assembly lines) that they were effectively second or third rate. The best aircraft faced by the Germans in Russia in 1942 were often Hurricanes, P-40s, and later P-39s and some Spitfire Mk Vs sent by the British and the Americans. The British were using Hurricanes and P-40s in North Africa with some success. Meanwhile the Finns were using the Brewster F2A very effectively against the Soviets.

These, again, were the same exact fighter aircraft types that the Japanese annihilated in a few weeks in Hawaii, Malaya, Philippines, Singapore, Ceylon etc..

Eventually, US Navy pilots, who were actually some of the most highly trained pilots in the world, especially for aerial gunnery, developed this rather brilliant Thach Weave concept which used every advantage the F4F had and helped give them a fighting chance against the A6M. But they were not dominating them, they were barely holding their own. Similarly, some USAAF and RAAF pilots in Darwin and the New Guinea area, and the AVG in China, developed hit and run tactics for use with P-40s which let them hold their own - just. AVG was doing well, if not quite as well as their propaganda, but they were mostly facing fixed undercarriage, open cockpit Ki-27s, and a few Ki-43s in initially. In the Pacific they were facing mainly A6Ms and it was a lot tougher.

If you look at the actual losses on both sides in 1942, Allies vs Japanese, it started out as a slaughter by the Japanese, and then there was a correction, and by mid-year it was about even with Wildcats and P-40s. P-39s and F2As were losing at about 2-1. The problem for the Japanese was they were outnumbered so 'about even' meant it was turning into an attrition war they couldn't keep up with that.

Only with the introduction of much more modern fighter designs like the P-38 and F4U, and some newer more powerful versions of the P-40 were the Allies starting to pull ahead a little (not as much as the propaganda suggests). And that took a while. Then the F6F came and it was certainly a match for the earlier A6M marks, plus by then the Japanese were running out of trained aircrew.

The Japanese did, as you should know by now, come up with competitive designs. The A6M5, Ki-44, Ki-61, N1K1, and later the Ki-84, were all quite competitive. The Japanese just had trouble with their development cycle and with maintenance issues. If they lagged behind it was mainly with that. And, just like the Germans, they lagged a bit in pushing the newer designs into action.

The Bf 109 was good, but it's range was a major limitation. It should have been replaced. The German Ju-87 dive bomber was excellent by early war standards, and was far more important to many of their early victories than most people recognize. But definitely needed replacing by the end of 1942. It never was.

The German fighter pilots racked up most of their impressive tally of victories in the earliest days of WW2. In Poland, France, Netherlands, and Belgium, they outnumbered the enemy a great deal and faced mostly less sophisticated aircraft. They were checked in England where they faced more modern types and an integrated defense system. In Russia, they were contending initially with exactly the same obsolescent type fighters the Japanese faced in China, but somehow they garner far more glory out of this. I attribute this to better propaganda which unfortunately particularly continues to resonate with a lot of Americans.

Somewhat middling aircraft types like P-40, were through good tactics and training, and some adjustments to the throttle, were made to achieve near parity with both German Bf 109 and Japanese A6M and Ki-43 in the mid-war (1942-43). The F4F mainly faced Japanese fighters but some were also used against the Germans and they didn't get slaughtered.

Finally .... forget about "kill ratios". That is very mid 20th Century, and are based on claims without really comparing losses.

 

[GrauGeist]

Leading up to the start of WWII in the late 1930's, each leading nation developed air power based on their individual needs and doctrines formed (and developed) in the interwar period.

The Empire of Japan was a maritime power with aircraft requirements unlike that of the U.S. or Britain. And in turn, Great Britain's aircraft requirements were different than that of the U.S., all due to geographic, monetary (and often political) considerations.

Japan's Naval aircraft were designed for range due to it's Empire being comprised of island or coastal possessions that required great distances covered. So too, were it's Army aircraft, as their inland territory nessitated the need for range.

Add to this, that the vast majority of opposition they encountered prior to 1941, were of lesser (older) designs.
This, coupled with the world's 1930's armament ideology of rifle-caliber weapons *may* give the impression that Japanese aircraft prior to, or at the start of the Pacific War, were "flimsy" but they were far from it.
They were designed that way and they met or exceeded their design requirements quite well.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Any aircraft that can routinely land and take off from a carrier probably isn't too flimsy.

The thing about armor and SS tanks is, as we know, at least in part a myth or propaganda, because most of the European and American designs also lacked these features initially, and they started adding them (sometimes causing great problems with the aircraft designs due to added weight) only after combat experience. Earliest Spitfire, Hurricane, F4F, F2A, P-36, P-40 etc. lacked armor or SS tanks. The Hurricane and Spitfire still had one basically unprotected (only by some aluminum 'armor' on the top) fuel tank into the mid-war.

The early A6M2 and Ki-43 lacked armor and SS tanks, which did eventually become a problem, but the later Ki-43-II and A6M5 did have both armor and SS tanks. They just arrived about a year too late.

I think if the Japanese did lag somewhat it was in engine development, and there not so much on the design level as the industrial capacity and know-how to get them working reliably and into really large scale mass production. But in this, they did not lag as much as the Russians or Italians for example. The Japanese were only slightly behind the UK, Germans, and US.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One other thing about the long-range aircraft, at which the Japanese excelled - this allowed them enormous operational / strategic flexibility, such that they could strike where unexpected and where the other side didn't have adequate defenses prepared. Thus for example the scramble to defend Darwin. It meant they could fully utilize their bombers, i.e. with escorts. Long range was in effect a force-multiplier.

What was revolutionary about the A6M, was that it was not just capable of contending with other naval aircraft (as aircraft carrier doctrine suggested they needed to be), but it could face the top land based fighters of it's time, at least initially. So this meant that in combination with their very long ranged land based strike aircraft like G4M they could sink a ship or bomb a port or an airfield almost anywhere, and even where they were resisted in the air, they were usually triumphant. This was part of the reason for the panic caused by the Japanese air forces early in the war.

The lack of a fighter with the range to escort longer range bombers like their Ju-88s and Sm.79s proved to be a major problem for the Germans and Italians in the Med in 1942-43. It meant the very, very narrow margin of success or failure for some of the critical supply convoys like Pedestal, which were only defended by Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes and early-model Martlets. Both the best fighters (Bf 109 and MC 202) and bombers (Ju 87) available to the Germans and Italians had very short range and were thus limited in how many days they could attack. If they had faced A6Ms and D3As, G4Ms etc. it might have gone differently.

 

[drgondog]

At a high level, the Japanese pilot training seemed more to be about transforming the pilot capable recruit to a near Ninja physical specimen (if we believe Caiden's translation of Saburo Sakai). Equivelent to Special Ops/Airborne/Ranger concept of 'super troop to force multiplier) in which one man's investment in training over a green Marine or Leg infantry was oten called into question by regular Army. Conceivably 3-4X competent fighter pilots could have been trained in same timeframe. Very possible that one for one the IJN fighter pilot was the highest physical talent and operator skill pilot in the world during early war in Pacific.

At a middle level, there is no translation for 'wingman/fight in pairs' or squadron/section/flight/element training for attack and defense in the Japanese philosophy. "Attack" is the guiding mindset of the fighter pilot, "Attack with teams' from Allies seemed to prevail.

At a low level, the Japanese had no operational equivalent to Construction Battalion SeaBees. Major issue to capturing and consoldating a forward base before retaliation.

To the question of Fighter Speed vs 'Manueverabilty'. Speed (and range) Kills.

For a design spec, 'maueverability' was an intangible metric.

You designed for speed given the powerplant of choice. The airplane is sized based on operational performance prioritized - with top speed, range (fuel fraction), ceiling, takeoff distance fully loaded, payload/armament objectives tendered based on the expected primary mission.

Manueverability is 'enhanced' or penalized based on airfoil selection (for CLmax range as funtion of AoA), vs lower CLmax if projected cruise envelope gives higher CL/CD ratio or when low speed handling not as critical as say a carrier landing. Wing Area as related to Gross Weight increases/decreases as the designer trades smaller wing/lower drag for top speed vs bigger wing for better climb/turn and lower landing speeds..

In just about Every design concept to prototype cycle, fights to the death occur between the Designer and the Structures guy. Mitsubishi IMO 'got it right'. They turned out the best LR air superiority fighter of the war until the Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning (and F4U/F6F as medium range performer) finally cleaned up their potential in early 1944.

Also IMO, armor was a non-issue but self sealing tanks should have been installed no later than early 1942

IMO the A6M was best of breed until late 1943 when much faster Allied fighters showed up in quantity. Had the engine growth available to Bf 109 or Spitfire served the A6M, there is no reason I can think fof why it would not be very competitive to EOW.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

At a high level, the Japanese pilot training seemed more to be about transforming the pilot capable recruit to a near Ninja physical specimen (if we believe Caiden's translation of Saburo Sakai). Equivelent to Special Ops/Airborne/Ranger concept of 'super troop to force multiplier) in which one man's investment in training over a green Marine or Leg infantry was oten called into question by regular Army. Conceivably 3-4X competent fighter pilots could have been trained in same timeframe. Very possible that one for one the IJN fighter pilot was the highest physical talent and operator skill pilot in the world during early war in Pacific.

At a middle level, there is no translation for 'wingman/fight in pairs' or squadron/section/flight/element training for attack and defense in the Japanese philosophy. "Attack" is the guiding mindset of the fighter pilot, "Attack with teams' from Allies seemed to prevail.

At a low level, the Japanese had no operational equivalent to Construction Battalion SeaBees. Major issue to capturing and consoldating a forward base before retaliation.

To the question of Fighter Speed vs 'Manueverabilty'. Speed (and range) Kills.

For a design spec, 'maueverability' was an intangible metric.

You designed for speed given the powerplant of choice. The airplane is sized based on operational performance prioritized - with top speed, range (fuel fraction), ceiling, takeoff distance fully loaded, payload/armament objectives tendered based on the expected primary mission.

Manueverability is 'enhanced' or penalized based on airfoil selection (for CLmax range as funtion of AoA), vs lower CLmax if projected cruise envelope gives higher CL/CD ratio or when low speed handling not as critical as say a carrier landing. Wing Area as related to Gross Weight increases/decreases as the designer trades smaller wing/lower drag for top speed vs bigger wing for better climb/turn and lower landing speeds..

In just about Every design concept to prototype cycle, fights to the death occur between the Designer and the Structures guy. Mitsubishi IMO 'got it right'. They turned out the best LR air superiority fighter of the war until the Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning (and F4U/F6F as medium range performer) finally cleaned up their potential in early 1944.

Also IMO, armor was a non-issue but self sealing tanks should have been installed no later than early 1942

IMO the A6M was best of breed until late 1943 when much faster Allied fighters showed up in quantity. Had the engine growth available to Bf 109 or Spitfire served the A6M, there is no reason I can think fof why it would not be very competitive to EOW.

Well said. I think even with just the ~950 hp engine of the A6M2 or the 1,100 one on the A6M3, it probably still was competitive in Europe. It was certainly competitive with P-40 and Spit V and those types were holding their own with Bf 109s in 1943.

I think the two big problems for the IJN and specifically the Zero were they did not thread the needle properly with the Zeke 32 - losing range and not gaining enough performance, with other only marginal improvements. And then took way too long to get to an A6M5 / Zeke 52. And in a way this parallels a kind of lag or sagging of aircraft development by the Germans in the same period IMO.

A6M5 is a fairly dangerous opponent for most Allied fighters in early 1943, but it arrived in 1944. By then, you have Spit XIV, P-51B/C/D, P-38J, P-47D etc. If they had made improving the zero a much higher priority in say early 1942, which would have required some prescience because the A6M2 still looked very good then... maybe you had something more like the A6M5 in time. J2M and N1K1 also weren't developed fast enough.

pretty much the same thing for the Army planes too. Ki-43-II came way too late, Ki-44 / 61 / 84 came too few and too late.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Aside from the SeaBees which is a good point, the Japanese also didn't have a robust search and rescue system like the Allies had. That contributed a lot to recovering an maintaining the numbers for trained aircrew, and also I'm sure to morale.

 

[GregP]

Well said. I think even with just the ~950 hp engine of the A6M2 or the 1,100 one on the A6M3, it probably still was competitive in Europe. It was certainly competitive with P-40 and Spit V and those types were holding their own with Bf 109s in 1943.

I think the two big problems for the IJN and specifically the Zero were they did not thread the needle properly with the Zeke 32 - losing range and not gaining enough performance, with other only marginal improvements. And then took way too long to get to an A6M5 / Zeke 52. And in a way this parallels a kind of lag or sagging of aircraft development by the Germans in the same period IMO.

A6M5 is a fairly dangerous opponent for most Allied fighters in early 1943, but it arrived in 1944. By then, you have Spit XIV, P-51B/C/D, P-38J, P-47D etc. If they had made improving the zero a much higher priority in say early 1942, which would have required some prescience because the A6M2 still looked very good then... maybe you had something more like the A6M5 in time. J2M and N1K1 also weren't developed fast enough.

pretty much the same thing for the Army planes too. Ki-43-II came way too late, Ki-44 / 61 / 84 came too few and too late.

The Spit XIV, P-51B/C did not show up in 1944 in Japanese skies. They showed up in ETO skies. The A6M-5 was a good fighter except the Hellcat and Corsair were better overall. The "competition" for the A6M-5 Model 52 was the F6F-3/5 and F4U-1a/d. The Spit XIV, P-51s, and P-47s DID show up in Japanese skies, but only when the writing was on the wall that the war was over. They DID come as a nasty shock to the IJN and IJA, I'm sure. What to you do when new fighter airplanes that are better than the ones that already beat you show up in numbers? I suppose go to suicide attacks, which they did. It didn't help much.

The FM-2 wasn't really a front-line fighter, not because of it's characteristics, which were good, but because of the use to which it was put. They assigned it to Jeep carriers whose job it was to go and address the bases the main US Navy Task Forces had bypassed. To a base, they were undersupplied, low on fuel, ammo, planes, and pilots, so they weren't exactly the best-equipped and best trained aerial opponents the FM-2s could have faced. Their kill-to-loss ratio was artificially high simply due to their employment. Yes, it was a decent-performing airplane but, no, it wasn't as good as a Hellcat or a Corsair.

In the war, the F6F flew 66,384 combat sorties. The F4U flew 60,609 combat sorties. The FM-2 flew 12,925 sorties. So, the F6F flew 47.4% of the combat sorties, the F4U flew 43.3%, and the FM-2 flew 9.2%.

Had the FM-2 not flown at all, almost nobody would have missed it. It took part in no major actions. Yes, it did good work but, no, that work wasn't exactly vital. You can't say the same for the Hellcat and Corsair, which were in the thick of things when it counted. These two planes made the A6M'Ki-61/Ki84/Ki-100 models obsolete all on their own, and they did it quite decisively, with top-notch kill ratios that were mostly won in the low-to-middle altitudes where Naval Fleet Defense and Attack fighters lived. Had there been a land bridge, we might have fought more IJA aircraft, but Japan is surrounded by Ocean, so most of the fighting was IJN and a forced landing was always a loss, many times of both plane (for sure) and pilot (mostly).

 

[Greg Boeser]

FM-2s did yeoman's work providing CAP for the USN fleet auxiliaries and invasion transports. At Leyte Gulf they were pressed into service attacking the Japanese surface forces threatening the invasion fleet off Samar. I can't imagine what it was like, trying to launch off a jeep carrier while under direct fire from enemy battleships.

 

[Spindash64]

At a high level, the Japanese pilot training seemed more to be about transforming the pilot capable recruit to a near Ninja physical specimen (if we believe Caiden's translation of Saburo Sakai). Equivelent to Special Ops/Airborne/Ranger concept of 'super troop to force multiplier) in which one man's investment in training over a green Marine or Leg infantry was oten called into question by regular Army. Conceivably 3-4X competent fighter pilots could have been trained in same timeframe. Very possible that one for one the IJN fighter pilot was the highest physical talent and operator skill pilot in the world during early war in Pacific.

At a middle level, there is no translation for 'wingman/fight in pairs' or squadron/section/flight/element training for attack and defense in the Japanese philosophy. "Attack" is the guiding mindset of the fighter pilot, "Attack with teams' from Allies seemed to prevail.

At a low level, the Japanese had no operational equivalent to Construction Battalion SeaBees. Major issue to capturing and consoldating a forward base before retaliation.

To the question of Fighter Speed vs 'Manueverabilty'. Speed (and range) Kills.

For a design spec, 'maueverability' was an intangible metric.

You designed for speed given the powerplant of choice. The airplane is sized based on operational performance prioritized - with top speed, range (fuel fraction), ceiling, takeoff distance fully loaded, payload/armament objectives tendered based on the expected primary mission.

Manueverability is 'enhanced' or penalized based on airfoil selection (for CLmax range as funtion of AoA), vs lower CLmax if projected cruise envelope gives higher CL/CD ratio or when low speed handling not as critical as say a carrier landing. Wing Area as related to Gross Weight increases/decreases as the designer trades smaller wing/lower drag for top speed vs bigger wing for better climb/turn and lower landing speeds..

In just about Every design concept to prototype cycle, fights to the death occur between the Designer and the Structures guy. Mitsubishi IMO 'got it right'. They turned out the best LR air superiority fighter of the war until the Mustang, Thunderbolt and Lightning (and F4U/F6F as medium range performer) finally cleaned up their potential in early 1944.

Also IMO, armor was a non-issue but self sealing tanks should have been installed no later than early 1942

IMO the A6M was best of breed until late 1943 when much faster Allied fighters showed up in quantity. Had the engine growth available to Bf 109 or Spitfire served the A6M, there is no reason I can think fof why it would not be very competitive to EOW.

As much as I consider the Zero to be highly underrated, I would argue it had less development potential than the Spitfire. Perhaps similar to the 109, but its high speed characteristics simply weren't good enough to make it a top of the line airframe by 44-45 the way that the Griffonfires were still among the most dangerous aircraft in Europe at that time. With more engine power, the Zero would be competitive with US carrier fighters, but only in the same regards that the late 109s could be competitive with Mustangs and Thunderbolts


While we're roughly on the topic of engines, though, I've heard that the P-51 doesn't actually gain any extra horsepower on WEP below 5,000ft. I cannot for the life of me understand how increasing allowable MAP (by a significant amount, no less) would result in zero power increase over normal limitations.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Spit XIV, P-51B/C did not show up in 1944 in Japanese skies. They showed up in ETO skies. The A6M-5 was a good fighter except the Hellcat and Corsair were better overall. The "competition" for the A6M-5 Model 52 was the F6F-3/5 and F4U-1a/d. The Spit XIV, P-51s, and P-47s DID show up in Japanese skies, but only when the writing was on the wall that the war was over. They DID come as a nasty shock to the IJN and IJA, I'm sure. What to you do when new fighter airplanes that are better than the ones that already beat you show up in numbers? I suppose go to suicide attacks, which they did. It didn't help much.

The FM-2 wasn't really a front-line fighter, not because of it's characteristics, which were good, but because of the use to which it was put. They assigned it to Jeep carriers whose job it was to go and address the bases the main US Navy Task Forces had bypassed. To a base, they were undersupplied, low on fuel, ammo, planes, and pilots, so they weren't exactly the best-equipped and best trained aerial opponents the FM-2s could have faced. Their kill-to-loss ratio was artificially high simply due to their employment. Yes, it was a decent-performing airplane but, no, it wasn't as good as a Hellcat or a Corsair.

In the war, the F6F flew 66,384 combat sorties. The F4U flew 60,609 combat sorties. The FM-2 flew 12,925 sorties. So, the F6F flew 47.4% of the combat sorties, the F4U flew 43.3%, and the FM-2 flew 9.2%.

Had the FM-2 not flown at all, almost nobody would have missed it. It took part in no major actions. Yes, it did good work but, no, that work wasn't exactly vital. You can't say the same for the Hellcat and Corsair, which were in the thick of things when it counted. These two planes made the A6M'Ki-61/Ki84/Ki-100 models obsolete all on their own, and they did it quite decisively, with top-notch kill ratios that were mostly won in the low-to-middle altitudes where Naval Fleet Defense and Attack fighters lived. Had there been a land bridge, we might have fought more IJA aircraft, but Japan is surrounded by Ocean, so most of the fighting was IJN and a forced landing was always a loss, many times of both plane (for sure) and pilot (mostly).

Did I mention the FM-2?

I'd say the F4F was bloody important though just because it took a while before F6F and a sufficient number of F4U were available. The FM-2 was the replacement for the F4F-4 that came a year late (except it would still need a two stage engine).

We did fight the Japanese Army Air Force, it was just done by the Army flying P-40s (and in the very end of the war, P-51s)

By 1944 when the F6F was racking up a ton of victories, Japan was already flagging somewhat in production and a lot in trained pilots. I think they were also outnumbered pretty badly by then.

 

[Spindash64]

I think the most impressive thing about the Hellcat's kill count is that it managed to FIND that many Japanese aircraft still flying by the time it showed up.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well there were still a few knock-down / drag outs in the Philippines, Okinawa etc., it's just that most of the really trained aircrew were already gone