Maneuverability vs Speed

[GrauGeist]

FM-2s did yeoman's work providing CAP for the USN fleet auxiliaries and invasion transports. At Leyte Gulf they were presssed 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.

I recently read account of the pilots of the air groups that were emergency scrambled off USS Gambier Bay while she was under attack.

Harrowing is not even close to a good description.

 

[GregP]

FM-2s did yeoman's work providing CAP for the USN fleet auxiliaries and invasion transports. At Leyte Gulf they were presssed 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.

Probably hairy.

 

[GregP]

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.

The F6F made it's combat debut in September 1943. It was in the fight for sure from that time forward.

The F4U made its combat debit in Dec 1942. But, it was mostly employed form land bases until much later.

I'm pretty sure most everyone knows that, though. Nothing earth-shaking there.

 

[Spindash64]

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).

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to the FM-2. It wasn't there for the big fights in the first place, it was there to keep convoys from being free lunch to air attacks. It was the WWII equivalent of the Hawker Harrier: you never want to have it be your first choice for air to air engagements, but it's FAR better than having no options.

 

[Vincenzo]

Was not february '43 fist fight of F4U?, the VF-12 was not formed in january?

 

[ThomasP]

First F4U combat deployment by the USMC in Feb'43. First F4U combat deployment by USN in Oct'43?

 

[drgondog]

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.

A-36 and P-51A arrived Fall 1943 in CBI to 23rd, 51st and 311FG plus Air Cmdo. The P-51B/C began combat ops in April 1944.

That said, the P-40, incl. AVG, was far above P-51 (973 vs 347). The P-40 also outscored the P-51 in PAC. and P-47 in MTO and CBI and near parity in PAC (655.5 vs 696.7). Source USAFHRC Aerial VC.

Olynyk and Shores were collaborating on combined airframe VCs for Commonwealth and US during WWII when Frank passed on us last year. The USAFHRC and Olynyk VC are one and the same but Olynyk also had updated USN/USMC that USAFHRC does not bother with.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

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.

I can't really say much in response to this. At this point, there's little point for any further discussion. I, however, might still start another topic in the What-If section on Japanese prototypes and aircraft development that would be related to this thread's topic to some degree.

I already have knowledge of certain details of your general summary, such as the Thach Weave, the presence of Soviet Pilots in the Air War over China, or the troubled development cycle of the wartime Japanese aviation industry. Other points also seem to be exaggerated to some degree, take for example the "annihilation" of Allied air power by IJN air power in the early war; in the Philippines and Malaya at the very least, many Allied aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and Japanese air forces had the numbers and the element of surprise to overwhelm their Allied enemies. Hawaii especially is untrue, with the P-40s that managed to reach the air performing quite well given the disadvantages that befell them. I've also heard fairly critical opinions on the pilot quality of the European colonies, which were of lower priority compared to their mother countries and closer colonies. Some points of yours also seem somewhat suspect, such as the notion that Russian engine development was behind Japanese efforts, when, for instance, there existed indigenous (if further developments of foreign designs, like early Japanese radials were to some degree) in-line liquid-cooled engines, while the Japanese generally relied on German designs throughout the war, as such engines were apparently quite complex for the Japanese to develop or to maintain (the Ki-12, Ki-64 and Ki-61-ii were victims of this, particularly the former two). There's also your past reliance on figures in the wartime TAIC report on Japanese aircraft, mostly calculations that have been disputed repeatedly in the past. I won't go much further than this, however.

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

I will concede on this point, at the very least, though by doing so, I must comment that, following this line of thought, most of the discussion surrounding this topic on the internet would be considered "very mid 20th Century". My opinion on Japan's strength on the world stage is arguable, but I largely remain unmoved on that point.

The most humorous claim I've seen in the entirety of this thread is that the Zero is "underrated", when it is, dare I say it, the most over-represented Japanese aircraft of all time, inclusive of both fictional and non-fictional aircraft.

 

[WARSPITER]

while the Japanese generally relied on German designs throughout the war

By the same token, Italy relied on Germany for better engines and still managed to come up with a better aircraft at the time
- Fiat G.55.

 

[GrauGeist]

...such as the notion that Russian engine development was behind Japanese efforts, when, for instance, there existed indigenous (if further developments of foreign designs, like early Japanese radials were to some degree) in-line liquid-cooled engines, while the Japanese generally relied on German designs throughout the war, as such engines were apparently quite complex for the Japanese to develop or to maintain (the Ki-12, Ki-64 and Ki-61-ii were victims of this, particularly the former two).

Several of the Soviet's engines were based on foreign designs like the Klimov M-100, which was a licenced Hispano-Suiza 12Y. The M-103/M-105 was a further development of the M-100.

The Mikulin AM-34 was influenced by Fiat designs.

The Shvetsov M-25 was developed from the Wright R-1820. The Ash-62 and 82 were further developments.

The Mikulin M-17 was a licensed copy of the BMW IV engine.

Not sure where you're going with the Nakajima KI-12 prototype, it was designed with the help of French engineers and powered by a Hispano-Suiza 12X.

It is true that several Japanese designs had German influence as the Japanese had a repoire with German aircraft manufacturers for quite some time (long before WWII). The D3A "Val" design was influenced by Heinkel's He70, by the way.

However, international aircraft design often had foreign influence. Let's talk about the P-51D for example: built to British requirements and eventually powered by a British designed engine.

 

[special ed]

The Ki-1 & Ki-2 were direct descendants of Hugo Junkers' designs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

FM-2s did yeoman's work providing CAP for the USN fleet auxiliaries and invasion transports. At Leyte Gulf they were presssed 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.

I just finished re-reading Hornfischer's "LSotTCS". It was apparently quite the race to find a plane before the other pilots, much less the first shells. Not only did they make strafing runs, they made dummy runs after using up all ammo. Balls indeed.

To your larger point, CAP for invasions or flying in hunter-killer groups in the Atlantic were much more numerous in terms of sorties, I bet, compared to beating up bases on the vine. Invasions didn't happen very often, but generated a lot of sorties. Antisub work in the Atlantic was obviously a daily thing.

 

[GregP]

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to the FM-2. It wasn't there for the big fights in the first place, it was there to keep convoys from being free lunch to air attacks. It was the WWII equivalent of the Hawker Harrier: you never want to have it be your first choice for air to air engagements, but it's FAR better than having no options.

DId not say the FM was a bad airplane or that it didn't do its job.

What I said, again, was that it's score was artificially high due to the assignments which the FM was tasked with: mop-up of bypassed Japanese installations.

Almost by definition, these bypassed units were undersupplied and were not exactly top-notch units. Most had little regular flying time and were short of everything including good, veteran pilots who were current and sharp. It doesn't mean there weren't dangerous situation or challenges, it means they weren't top-notch units. If they had been, they would not have been abandoned or unsupplied by the IJN.

I'm sure there were decent fights, but how good can a unit be who has been unsupplied and abandoned? They were short on planes, engines, props, parts, pilots, gasoline, ammunition, and mechanics. So, maybe they could put up half or more of the planes they had. How much flying time do you think those guys had recently?

Yes, they fought, but no, they weren't exactly top-notch competition. Our FM guys, on the other hand, had flying time, gasoline, parts, food, and mechanics. They were ready, willing, and able. You KNOW they were just spoiling for a fight. The results are a bit of a foregone conclusion.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I can't really say much in response to this. At this point, there's little point for any further discussion. I, however, might still start another topic in the What-If section on Japanese prototypes and aircraft development that would be related to this thread's topic to some degree.

I already have knowledge of certain details of your general summary, such as the Thach Weave, the presence of Soviet Pilots in the Air War over China, or the troubled development cycle of the wartime Japanese aviation industry. Other points also seem to be exaggerated to some degree, take for example the "annihilation" of Allied air power by IJN air power in the early war; in the Philippines and Malaya at the very least, many Allied aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and Japanese air forces had the numbers and the element of surprise to overwhelm their Allied enemies.

Catching the other guy napping and destroying their planes on the ground is air-war 101, part of how it's done. It is what the Germans did to the French, Poles, Dutch, Greeks and Russians during their initial invasions, it's what the DAF did to the Germans and Italians in the latter parts of the North African campaign and in Sicily and Italy, and it's what the US did to the Japanese in the Pacific and in China too, as soon as they had the opportunity. Many were destroyed in the air, but it's often easier and safer to destroy them on the ground if you can pull it off.

The US lost 188 aircraft at Pearl Harbor. The IJN lost 29 aircraft, mostly to flak.

The ratios were similar in Malaya (RAF using Hurricane II and Brewster F2A) and Java (mix of Dutch planes and US P-40s, and some experimental types) and the Philippines (P-40s and P-35s)

In Malaya, in December 1941 the British initially had four fighter squadrons of F2A Buffalos, and six or seven bomber squadrons with Blenheims, Hudsons, and obsolete Vildebeasts, plus some Catalinas. These were reinforced by some Dutch air force planes and 50 x Hurricane IIB in January. By the end of January all of these aircraft were all wiped out in the air mainly by Ki-27s and Ki-43s, and by being bombed or overrun on the ground.

In Java the Dutch also had the not very good F2A Buffalos and some RAF Hurricanes, one Albacore and a fairly useless Vildebeast, but later reinforced by the Americans with modern aircraft including P-40s, some unique and interesting US point defense fighters called CW-22 "Demon", DB-7 (A-20), B-17s, and A-24s. Due to the chaos on the ground not all of these aircraft made it into combat - some were dumped into the harbor in their crates. They also had some German Do 24 and US PBY flying boats which were mostly used to evacuate people. A larger shipment of P-40s was supposed to be coming but was sunk on the proto-carrier USS Langley (along with 33 doomed US pilots who survived the Langley sinking but then died when their rescue ship USS Edsall got sunk the next day). The Japanese were using A6M among other aircraft in Java / Dutch East Indies / Indonesia.

The Philippines was defended by the US Far East Air Force consisting of 54 x P-40E, 18 x P-40B, 18 x Seversky P-35s, and had B-17 bombers available. These were attacked Dec 8/ 9 by the Japanese mainly flying A6M for fighters, and were wiped out by Dec 23

Hawaii especially is untrue, with the P-40s that managed to reach the air performing quite well given the disadvantages that befell them.

The handful of P-40s and one P-36 that were able to get airborne on Dec 7 in Hawaii (mostly from one small arifield the IJN neglected to bomb) shot down maybe 6-10 aircraft from the second wave of the Japanese attack. Mainly just by taking advantage of the chaos, losing three to the Japanese and at least one to friendly fire. The significance of their brave action was, aside from the pilots directly involved, to propaganda and to slightly help assuage morale in that very bad moment. But not so much beyond that.

I've also heard fairly critical opinions on the pilot quality of the European colonies, which were of lower priority compared to their mother countries and closer colonies.

I've heard this too, that people disliked by command etc. were sent to the Far East. But even if this is true, it assumes that the upper leadership / command structure could tell, in advance, who was going to be a good fighter pilot or not. Many of the pilots who fought in Malaya were RAAF and RNZAF pilots who turned out to be very good during later battles in the Pacific (and in the Middle East). For them it wasn't so much a remote position but more like their back yard. Similarly, the Philippines and Hawaii were seen as somewhat 'cherry' assignments for US pilots, compared to for example Panama or Alaska. Here again, several people who became notable aces later in the war were found.

So I think that claim is mostly B.S., though it is founded in some beliefs really held during and before the war, especially in the UK.

Some points of yours also seem somewhat suspect, such as the notion that Russian engine development was behind Japanese efforts, when, for instance, there existed indigenous (if further developments of foreign designs, like early Japanese radials were to some degree) in-line liquid-cooled engines,

You can stop right there. as GrauGeist already pointed out, this isn't true. The best liquid cooled engines used by Russia (Klimov M100 series) used in the Yak 1 / 7 / 9 / 3 fighters, were directly derived from the French / Swiss / Spanish Hispano-Suiza 12Y. These were good, but being based on the 12-Y were small and never reached the power of Merlin, Allison, or DB 600 series engines. They were still much better than the overweight Mikulin engine (developed from the BMW IV, and used on the unsuccessful MiG-3).

The most powerful Soviet radial engine built during the war, the excellent Shvestov Ash-82 (1530-1900 hp), used in the La 5 / 5FN / 7 / 9 was developed from the US Wright R-1820 Cyclone.

The Japanese came to focus on radial engines mainly, for the same reason that the US Navy did - because they were easier to maintain in a harsh environment, less vulnerable to damage (a single bullet or shrapnel hole in the radiator can shut down an inline engine) and didn't require additional special fluids i.e. Ethylene glycol. It was an adaption to the Pacific Theater, not a failure of engineering. They did have some trouble with their adapted DB 601 engine in the Ki-61 but that wasn't unusual.

The Japanese radials, further more, like the 18 cylinder Nakajima Homare (1,650-2,200 hp) and it's precursor, the smaller 14 cylinder Nakajima Sakae (1130 hp), known for it's unusually high efficiency, were actually native designs, although you can trace their influence back to both the Bristol Jupiter and P&W R-1340 Wasp back in the 1930s.

The Homare was also a bit more powerful than the Shvestov 82, though it took longer to fully 'debug'.

while the Japanese generally relied on German designs throughout the war, as such engines were apparently quite complex for the Japanese to develop or to maintain (the Ki-12, Ki-64 and Ki-61-ii were victims of this, particularly the former two).

See above, this is basically a red herring. It's also worth repeating, as GrauGeist already pointed out, it was normal for engine designers to copy foreign designs, and was done all over the world by every major power including the US and UK.

There's also your past reliance on figures in the wartime TAIC report on Japanese aircraft, mostly calculations that have been disputed repeatedly in the past. I won't go much further than this, however.

Yeah, wise. I don't think you are on very solid ground, though precise performance figures on Japanese fighters are still debated and we don't seem to have very good sources on them.

I will concede on this point, at the very least, though by doing so, I must comment that, following this line of thought, most of the discussion surrounding this topic on the internet would be considered "very mid 20th Century". My opinion on Japan's strength on the world stage is arguable, but I largely remain unmoved on that point.

The most humorous claim I've seen in the entirety of this thread is that the Zero is "underrated", when it is, dare I say it, the most over-represented Japanese aircraft of all time, inclusive of both fictional and non-fictional aircraft.

I would say that the Zero is extremely underrated, and this is mainly because so many people, in particular in the US, focus almost exclusively in the last two years of the war in evaluating aircraft. In part because that is when US aircraft were dominant.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I can't really say much in response to this.

You seem like a smart guy, you write pretty well and have a sense of humor, but you are making assertions (Japanese were inferior to Europeanz and the Nazis made the best stuff!!!) which are a little creepy, and not supported by the facts. Which by your own admission, you aren't really up to speed on.

I am not one of the long established regulars on here so I know what it's like to come from "outside the clique" so to speak, which is why I've been trying to provide you some of the data you are lacking. There is a lot of knowledge in this forum and people who can point you to even more. That's what it is for. Debating who is inferior to whom is kind of more for I don't know, reddit or something.

 

[yulzari]

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to the FM-2. It wasn't there for the big fights in the first place, it was there to keep convoys from being free lunch to air attacks. It was the WWII equivalent of the Hawker Harrier: you never want to have it be your first choice for air to air engagements, but it's FAR better than having no options.

Even in Europe it was more than holding its own against Luftwaffe fighters over Norway in 1945. I can't comment upon the quality of the Luftwaffe pilots there but the Royal Navy pilots were well trained and it was the seventh year of the war for the Fleet Air Arm.

 

[tomo pauk]

By the same token, Italy relied on Germany for better engines and still managed to come up with a better aircraft at the time
- Fiat G.55.

Good call on the Italian engine ... issues.
BTW - was really the gorgeous G.55 a better fighter than German types?

 

[Gary Cain]

Good call on the Italian engine ... issues.
BTW - was really the gorgeous G.55 a better fighter than German types?

Performance wise the G55 and MC 205 were marginally better than the 109. Not as good as the FW190

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Good call on the Italian engine ... issues.
BTW - was really the gorgeous G.55 a better fighter than German types?

I think the Germans themselves were quite interested in both the G55 and the Re 2005 as having the potential to be better than anything they had. Speed wasn't quite as high as the fastest 109 and 190 variants, but that could have been remedied. Armament was at least as good, range was a bit better and maneuverability was considerably better. Kurt Tank was in particular a big fan of the G55. The problem came down to the number of man hours to build them. It would have taken the Germans too long, or so they concluded, to adapt their factories to build them efficiently enough. 15,000 man hours for an early G.55, which they thought they could get down to 9,000 man-hours. But by that time 109s were already made in only 5,000 man-hours.

Fiat G.55 Centauro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tomo pauk]

Performance wise the G55 and MC 205 were marginally better than the 109. Not as good as the FW190

MC 205 - probably yes; G.55 less so, even if the comparable Bf 109 was carrying gondola cannons.
Problem was that WAllies were not eager anymore in playing at 400 mph speed range, they were aiming for 430-450, and were acieving that already by mid-1943, let alone in 1944, and doubly so at ~25000 ft.

I think the Germans themselves were quite interested in both the G55 and the Re 2005 as having the potential to be better than anything they had. Speed wasn't quite as high as the fastest 109 and 190 variants, but that could have been remedied.

I wouldn't be too excited about G55 and Re2005 having the potential to be better than anything the Germans had.
Remedy for making the speed figures better for the Italian fighter was installing much better engines, but same goes for German own fighters, and here the Germans dropped the ball by 1943.