Maneuverability vs Speed

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Yep, I sure was sloppy with my last post... I meant to speak of the Ki-64, as opposed to the Ki-54, and had only taken a quick, cursory glance at the prototype P-38's speed. Will replace the P-38 with the He-100, which was apparently capable of speeds up to and around 400mph. Having read some of the aforementioned Ki-84 thread, the 634kph, and to a lesser degree the 624kph (questions about the engine tested), speed seems to be disputed, and the TAIC calculation is closer to reality than is commonly thought, though still inaccurate, relying on some peculiar numbers.

I think you can cite remarkable disasters for all 'western' powers, insome area or another. Japan did poorly in armor and large land battles, but were rather good at sinking ships in the beginning of the pacific war. In surface combat sometimes heavily outnumbered. They had some specialities, and produced what is generally considered the best flying boat of ww2 (operational, albeit in trivial numbers). That partly was because they prioritized their best engines for those, whereas few flying boats of the other nations used more than second tier engines for flying boats. What you excel at is also a result of the choices you make.

Some Western powers like Spain, Italy, and Russia/USSR did experience atrociously disastrous defeats in the early 20th century, and to some degree, beyond, but their scientific and industrial bases, less so for the former—if Spain had any advantage at all—appeared to edge out over Japan's, especially in rocketry (primarily Soviet in this case) and jet technology (primarily the Caproni Campini N.1 here), which are the most relevant to the topic of WWII aviation. Japan's specialties, meanwhile, were generally refinements of existing technologies, without much innovation, though the long lance torpedo, and perhaps the Type 91 torpedo, looks promising. I guess I can't disagree on the performance of the Japanese navy early on, though the track record of their carriers is underwhelming given their vaunted naval aviation.

Yak-9 was mostly 560-570 km/h for the best part of the war. MiG-3 botched it's prospects due to the faulty canopy retracting mechanism, that meant the ability to quickly remove it in case of danger was suspect, that in return meant that MiG was flown with open canopy, with the major speed penalty. Weak firepower necessitated installation of gondola HMGs or rockets, either of that meant that actual speed took another hit.

Italian late-war aircraft have had more of a problem of paltry numbers produced? Speed interval was between 620 and 640 km/h, the small MC.205V being the fastest of the lot.

So the La-7 is still faster than any front-line Japanese aircraft?. The G.56, and the P.119, also appeared to have rather fast speeds,. I must add that I was relying on memory of high-end speeds for the Russian aircraft and for the G.55 series based on some rather dubious sources, ones that one might be able to guess.

Edit:

As far as the record flight goes. A Hawker Hurricane did about 640kph in 1938? (one hell of a tail wind an it was planned to take advantage of it)

Wanted to reply to this point, but forgot to. It is one specific weather condition though, so should it taken into consideration in this discussion? Whether or not this flight took place and that speed was achieved, there existed faster aircraft before and some months after.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think hindsight is very, very powerful here when it comes to perceptions of the Japanese. People weren't so cocky about the IJN in 1942 or even 1943.

 

[Shortround6]

Wanted to reply to this point, but forgot to. It is one specific weather condition though, so should it taken into consideration in this discussion? Whether or not this flight took place and that speed was achieved, there existed faster aircraft before and some months after.

The flight by the Hurricane was put out in the press. They sure weren't putting out the real figures pre and early war
It is about the most extreme example of performance announced to the press that wasn't true that I can think of. They may have actually gotten the 400mph over ground but the pilot and the crew at Hawkers all knew it was a huge tail wind.

Unless your spy network was pretty good a lot of designers were working in the dark as to what the opposition could really do.
He 100 was a good example. It was a record setting race plane and often the existing published photos were rather blurry.

The much vaunted XF4U Corsair flight at over 400mph is also subject to question.

The XP-39 390mph flight was total fiction. Nobody knows what day it was done on, who the pilot was or what flight in the test program it was done on. Considering the number of hours it was flown before they shipped it off to Langley for the wind tunnel work (under 3 hours) and the number of things that were giving them trouble ( both oil and Prestone cooling troubles and needing a new drive shaft) there is no doubt the sales dept was lying.

We, with the benefit of hindsight, should probably stick to squadron service entry dates.
Much like naval architects looking at foreign ships, aircraft designers can look at competing planes and make very good guesses as to how they did something an/or if the stated performance was at least probably or somebody was lying about the engine power or if something was total organic fertilizer.

 

[Shortround6]

Even the people that are otherwise very eager to flag-wave with US flag will find hard to prove that P-38 did 680 kn/h before 1943, let alone in 1939.

GO to item 7 in the report.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/YP-38_39-689_PHQ-M-19-1191-A.pdf

which rather proves your point. Most of the YP-38s were unpainted, even if ballasted, most were not armed or not carrying full guns and had streamline fairings over whatever guns they did have.
There are at least 4 photos of the plane that was used in the Report as it was also the YP-38 that crashed on Nov 4th 1941 due to compressibility problems.
Not the same plane but the there only two nose gun fairings visible.

Also note the non standard scopes on the top of the nacelles.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Some Western powers like Spain, Italy, and Russia/USSR did experience atrociously disastrous defeats in the early 20th century, and to some degree, beyond, but their scientific and industrial bases, less so for the former—if Spain had any advantage at all—appeared to edge out over Japan's, especially in rocketry (primarily Soviet in this case) and jet technology (primarily the Caproni Campini N.1 here), which are the most relevant to the topic of WWII aviation. Japan's specialties, meanwhile, were generally refinements of existing technologies, without much innovation, though the long lance torpedo, and perhaps the Type 91 torpedo, looks promising. I guess I can't disagree on the performance of the Japanese navy early on, though the track record of their carriers is underwhelming given their vaunted naval aviation.

When i said that everybody experienced disastrous defeats, I meant everybody. USA and Great Britain included, you already hinted at Savo island. Sure, it wasn't a disastrous strategic defeat, but neither was khalkin Gol. Unless you believe the future of Imperial japan lay in Sibiria. To add a bit of context on that battle, it was fought by a somewhat rogue fraction of the Japanese army without the full support of the IJN. I don't think it probable that full support could have resulted in a victory, but I belong in the camp that think that not starting a full scale war with the Soviet Union was one of the better strategic decisions made by the Japanese. Yes, it could (maybe) have resulted in the collapse of the USSR cought in a two front war, but the Japanese cold not, and probably did not, trust Hitler. Or that he would knock out France in 1940, a true strategic disaster for western powers.

I don't agree that rocketry and jet technology were in any way decisive in ww2, even then it seem the USA was not in the forefront. It was still a great power. They became vey important after, and could have during if the war was prolonged. But that war we discuss in the what ifs.

We can come up with specialities, and argue that this or that speciality was telling while others were merely second rate power adaptions of existing technology. We can also focus on prototypes which, whether the publicised data were correct or not, would never have worked in a fighting environment. But like jet power, that is concentrating on the spectacular rather than the in practical terms significant.

I'll grant you that the axis did just that. Apart from the miscalculations as to the speed with which they could finish their campaigns, and the lack of resilience of decadent soft regimes, they believed they could also make up for numerical inferiority with general technological superiority. Instead they had some great achivements, a lot of average ones and their share of the truly dismal. I don't recon japan was worse of than Italy, though Germany overall achieved more. In view of their industrial base they should be expected to.

Pertinent to this thread may be the 'butterfly flaps' of Nakajima. It's not rocket science, but the successful installment in combat aircraft gave one edge to aircraft without paying in full the usual speed penalty for greater manouverability. I'm not saying that the Ki-84 was a superplane exceeding everything the allies had, but in good finish it was a worthy opponent. The usually poor finish was a result of the war going badly for a long time now, not any inherent weakness apart from not being big enough. And some very bad decisions, like fighting the worlds largest industrial power and the most populous at the same time. And the Commonwealth now they were at it.

 

[tomo pauk]

So the La-7 is still faster than any front-line Japanese aircraft?. The G.56, and the P.119, also appeared to have rather fast speeds,. I must add that I was relying on memory of high-end speeds for the Russian aircraft and for the G.55 series based on some rather dubious sources, ones that one might be able to guess.

La-7 was faster than anything Japanese had, bar the full-spec Ki-84. It was also a bit weakly armed for the standards of the day, and was short ranged - the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever.
G.56 was a prototype, powered by a foreign engine. P.119 was also a prototype. Same as the Ki-83 that was still in the prototype stage, that supposedly was good for 438-470 mph (I'm not going to put my had in the fire to prove any of these speed figures, FWIW).
Care to elaborate the G.55 tidbit from there?

 

[Shortround6]

As Tomo has said the 'no free lunch' rule applies.
The Soviet aircraft were usually closer in size to a 109 than to anything the Japanese were using.
Actual size (drag) of the aircraft is more important than weight for speed. Weight starts becoming more important than size when figuring climb.
If you want a 220-230sq ft wing you pay for it in drag vs 175-190sq ft wings.

You also have increasing build quality of the Soviet aircraft (generally) in 1944-45 vs decreasing build quality for the Japanese in 1944-45.

Information on the Fiat G.55/56/59 can found or guessed at using the post war foreign sales examples. The G.55A was a post war G.55 using left-over DB 605 engines. The later G-59 used commercial Merlin T-24 engines. The T-24 engines had a lower FTH than the DB 605s but they were supposed to be good for 368mph at about 20,000ft (sources differ) but that is with four 20mm Hispano guns sticking out of the wings and possible bomb and rocket rocket racks (1950s style). They got the two seat G.59-4b trainer up to 380mph.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Don't they still have a few of those in Argentina or somewhere? I would love to see one at an airshow

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Although there is a general agreement in this thread that performance trumps manoeuvrability, defeating more manoeuvrable fighters could be difficult. I found some (translated) comments from Johannes Steinhoff at Johannes Steinhoff – First Aero Squadron Foundation ™ on fighting against Yak-9s...

"...Me 262?"

The Me-262 was intended to either be an interceptor or a "ground attack / bomber" aircraft, from what I've heard, so it may not be the best example to use in this case.

La-7 was faster than anything Japanese had, bar the full-spec Ki-84. It was also a bit weakly armed for the standards of the day, and was short ranged - the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever.

I suppose that every strength in an aircraft's design demands the sacrifice of another.

G.56 was a prototype, powered by a foreign engine. P.119 was also a prototype. Same as the Ki-83 that was still in the prototype stage, that supposedly was good for 438-470 mph (I'm not going to put my had in the fire to prove any of these speed figures, FWIW).

From what I've read on the Ki-83, the general consensus is that the prototype Ki-83, in good condition, was agile around 650kph in Japanese tests, and exceeded that number to reach a speed of 686kph, if I remember correctly—and there's yet another ((100x + 80) + ((6X_n + 2) mod 25))* speed, if is a real figure, that is—and 704kph in later tests, though documentation, is, if not destroyed, difficult to find, apparently, for both the Japanese and American tests, the latter was where the >750kph figure was supposedly achieved, maybe. Seriously, I've even seen 580kph for the aircraft of other nations, like some Spitfire variant for instance, never mind Japanese aircraft.

The P.119 seems superior to the Ki-61-ii prototype, even with the latter weighing less and featuring a similarly powerful but liquid-cooled (and foreign) engine. The former even appears to be the larger aircraft based on the specifications I have at hand, although the novel engine layout might have given it an advantage, I'm not sure. The propeller? This comparison paints a brighter picture of Italy's wartime aviation industry, unless I'm wrong, which I could very well be.

Care to elaborate the G.55 tidbit from there?

I've seen 650kph listed as the maximum speed for the G.55 in certain place(s) on the internet.

The Soviet aircraft were usually closer in size to a 109 than to anything the Japanese were using.
Actual size (drag) of the aircraft is more important than weight for speed. Weight starts becoming more important than size when figuring climb.
If you want a 220-230sq ft wing you pay for it in drag vs 175-190sq ft wings.

Information on the Fiat G.55/56/59 can found or guessed at using the post war foreign sales examples. The G.55A was a post war G.55 using left-over DB 605 engines. The later G-59 used commercial Merlin T-24 engines. The T-24 engines had a lower FTH than the DB 605s but they were supposed to be good for 368mph at about 20,000ft (sources differ) but that is with four 20mm Hispano guns sticking out of the wings and possible bomb and rocket rocket racks (1950s style). They got the two seat G.59-4b trainer up to 380mph.

The Ki-44 is an example of a small frontline Japanese fighter, though the engine of the later variant was weaker than, say, the La-7's, by a few hundred hp. It was rather tall, and had roughly similar wing-loading to the La-7 despite its lower wing area, it seems.

Sure, it wasn't a disastrous strategic defeat, but neither was khalkin Gol. Unless you believe the future of Imperial japan lay in Sibiria. To add a bit of context on that battle, it was fought by a somewhat rogue fraction of the Japanese army without the full support of the IJN. I don't think it probable that full support could have resulted in a victory, but I belong in the camp that think that not starting a full scale war with the Soviet Union was one of the better strategic decisions made by the Japanese. Yes, it could (maybe) have resulted in the collapse of the USSR cought in a two front war, but the Japanese cold not, and probably did not, trust Hitler. Or that he would knock out France in 1940, a true strategic disaster for western powers.

German soldiers seemed to be able to achieve more favorable kill ratios throughout much of the war, maybe less so against the forces of the Western Allies, in contrast to Japanese soldiers, and while there have been various reasons considered for the higher mortality rates of the Japanese soldier, the most damning reason is poor equipment and logistics, the former reliant on the latter, and both reduce the credibility of Japan as a major industrial power for the period. Late-war Japanese forces, from what I can remember, displayed competence against overwhelming Soviet forces, especially when the Soviets attempted naval invasions, but by that time Japan's already inferior forces were in freefall. I've heard that that the Japanese army of the 1930s would have potentially struggled against even the contemporary Polish army, the same nation that was overrun by German forces in a few months. It is a highly speculative scenario that I would follow your advice and discuss further in the "What If" sub-forum, if the inherent absurdities could be tolerated.

I don't agree that rocketry and jet technology were in any way decisive in ww2, even then it seem the USA was not in the forefront. It was still a great power. They became vey important after, and could have during if the war was prolonged. But that war we discuss in the what ifs.

We can come up with specialities, and argue that this or that speciality was telling while others were merely second rate power adaptions of existing technology. We can also focus on prototypes which, whether the publicised data were correct or not, would never have worked in a fighting environment. But like jet power, that is concentrating on the spectacular rather than the in practical terms significant.

I'll grant you that the axis did just that. Apart from the miscalculations as to the speed with which they could finish their campaigns, and the lack of resilience of decadent soft regimes, they believed they could also make up for numerical inferiority with general technological superiority. Instead they had some great achivements, a lot of average ones and their share of the truly dismal. I don't recon japan was worse of than Italy, though Germany overall achieved more. In view of their industrial base they should be expected to.

The United States had the world's largest economy, was home of numerous inventions, including powered flight itself, and was one of the victorious powers in WWI, not to mention its growing cultural influence on the world stage. In fact, the US had been ordering hundreds, if not thousands, of jets like the F-80 for the war over Japan. Ki-84s (likely some newer, slower(?) model), A7Ms, Ki-102s, and maybe a few Kikka and J8Ms (all in various states of maintenance), if they had managed to survive against the already numerous Allied props and superprops, against hundreds of jets. A slaughter. The future prospects of the Japanese Empire were dire, even if somehow, their conquest of China was accepted. An increasingly outdated military against a potential Soviet threat, even in the wake of a Brest-Litovsk-esque treaty (total German victory was almost impossible), and an increasingly hostile American and Commonwealth once they come to their senses. I haven't even touched upon radar or nuclear weapons. Granted further discussion can only continue in a different thread in the appropriate section.

I will admit that Japanese military technology was on par with, if not superior in some areas, colonial and Pacific forces in Asia—though this advantage primarily arose from Allied arrogance and negligence, and was largely superior to the foreign-dependent militaries of Asia. Japan also appeared to be catching up to, and exceeding Italian aviation technology at times, as the latter generally utilised German engines in achieving higher performance. However, Italy still appears to have had a stronger scientific tradition than Japan. Enrico Fermi was an Italian, and a professor in Rome at that.

Pertinent to this thread may be the 'butterfly flaps' of Nakajima. It's not rocket science, but the successful installment in combat aircraft gave one edge to aircraft without paying in full the usual speed penalty for greater manouverability. I'm not saying that the Ki-84 was a superplane exceeding everything the allies had, but in good finish it was a worthy opponent. The usually poor finish was a result of the war going badly for a long time now, not any inherent weakness apart from not being big enough. And some very bad decisions, like fighting the worlds largest industrial power and the most populous at the same time. And the Commonwealth now they were at it.

It's still merely a variant of a fowler flap, and isn't counted as a distinct flap type in its own right.

* Unsure if the random generator here is good, but it exists only to express my feelings on the matter.

 

[GregP]

Well we are talking WW2 fighter aircraft in combat, not civilians pottering around in Cessna's.

Ya' think?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Me-262 was intended to either be an interceptor or a "ground attack / bomber" aircraft, from what I've heard, so it may not be the best example to use in this case.


I suppose that every strength in an aircraft's design demands the sacrifice of another.

From what I've read on the Ki-83, the general consensus is that the prototype Ki-83, in good condition, was agile around 650kph in Japanese tests, and exceeded that number to reach a speed of 686kph, if I remember correctly—and there's yet another ((100x + 80) + ((6X_n + 2) mod 25))* speed, if is a real figure, that is—and 704kph in later tests, though documentation, is, if not destroyed, difficult to find, apparently, for both the Japanese and American tests, the latter was where the >750kph figure was supposedly achieved, maybe. Seriously, I've even seen 580kph for the aircraft of other nations, like some Spitfire variant for instance, never mind Japanese aircraft.

The P.119 seems superior to the Ki-61-ii prototype, even with the latter weighing less and featuring a similarly powerful but liquid-cooled (and foreign) engine. The former even appears to be the larger aircraft based on the specifications I have at hand, although the novel engine layout might have given it an advantage, I'm not sure. The propeller? This comparison paints a brighter picture of Italy's wartime aviation industry, unless I'm wrong, which I could very well be.

I've seen 650kph listed as the maximum speed for the G.55 in certain place(s) on the internet.


The Ki-44 is an example of a small frontline Japanese fighter, though the engine of the later variant was weaker than, say, the La-7's, by a few hundred hp. It was rather tall, and had roughly similar wing-loading to the La-7 despite its lower wing area, it seems.


German soldiers seemed to be able to achieve more favorable kill ratios throughout much of the war, maybe less so against the forces of the Western Allies, in contrast to Japanese soldiers, and while there have been various reasons considered for the higher mortality rates of the Japanese soldier, the most damning reason is poor equipment and logistics, the former reliant on the latter, and both reduce the credibility of Japan as a major industrial power for the period. Late-war Japanese forces, from what I can remember, displayed competence against overwhelming Soviet forces, especially when the Soviets attempted naval invasions, but by that time Japan's already inferior forces were in freefall. I've heard that that the Japanese army of the 1930s would have potentially struggled against even the contemporary Polish army, the same nation that was overrun by German forces in a few months. It is a highly speculative scenario that I would follow your advice and discuss further in the "What If" sub-forum, if the inherent absurdities could be tolerated.

The United States had the world's largest economy, was home of numerous inventions, including powered flight itself, and was one of the victorious powers in WWI, not to mention its growing cultural influence on the world stage. In fact, the US had been ordering hundreds, if not thousands, of jets like the F-80 for the war over Japan. Ki-84s (likely some newer, slower(?) model), A7Ms, Ki-102s, and maybe a few Kikka and J8Ms (all in various states of maintenance), if they had managed to survive against the already numerous Allied props and superprops, against hundreds of jets. A slaughter. The future prospects of the Japanese Empire were dire, even if somehow, their conquest of China was accepted. An increasingly outdated military against a potential Soviet threat, even in the wake of a Brest-Litovsk-esque treaty (total German victory was almost impossible), and an increasingly hostile American and Commonwealth once they come to their senses. I haven't even touched upon radar or nuclear weapons. Granted further discussion can only continue in a different thread in the appropriate section.

I will admit that Japanese military technology was on par with, if not superior in some areas, colonial and Pacific forces in Asia—though this advantage primarily arose from Allied arrogance and negligence, and was largely superior to the foreign-dependent militaries of Asia. Japan also appeared to be catching up to, and exceeding Italian aviation technology at times, as the latter generally utilised German engines in achieving higher performance. However, Italy still appears to have had a stronger scientific tradition than Japan. Enrico Fermi was an Italian, and a professor in Rome at that.

It's still merely a variant of a fowler flap, and isn't counted as a distinct flap type in its own right.

* Unsure if the random generator here is good, but it exists only to express my feelings on the matter.

Japan faced some immense challenges in WW2, but so did every country. The US lagged behind in many aspects of weapons design during the war, some of which took years to rectify. The Mk 13 and 14 torpedoes for example. Many early US aircraft designs such as the F2A, P-39, TBD Devastator also did poorly, and many of the aircraft which ultimately had significant success were deeply flawed and / or had major, extended teething problems (P-38, P-40, P-47, F4U, SB2C) and / or relied heavily on technology transfers from the UK (P-51). The F6F and B-29 were more successful but came relatively late in the war.

I would say your summation above is a breathtaking under-estimate of Japanese military technology and capabilities. Aside from destroying the US surface fleet at Peal Harbor, they conquered Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Philippines with a swiftness that shocked the world, and their navy proved equally devastating - major setbacks such as Midway not withstanding - well into 1943. They were relatively slow to develop radar (though they did have it) but the fact that their torpedoes worked, unlike ours, and the skill they demonstrated at night combat meant that they were extremely dangerous in war at sea. Their aircraft like the D3A were highly effective and sunk many US ships while the A6M and Ki-43 took a very heavy toll on Allied aircraft and remained quite dangerous for allied pilots through the mid-war.

For a relatively small island they held their own remarkably well. The late war Japanese aircraft designs may have come too late but they were hardly inferior. A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61 and Ki-44 (as well as the D3A) were competitive designs into the mid war. J2M, N1K1, Ki-84, Ki-67, B7N, Ki-83 etc. were all highly competitive, world-class designs through the end of the war, they just didn't make enough of them. Experimental planes like the J7W were innovative and high performing, and they were working on jets derived from German designs (see the Kikka). Nor was the P-80 necessarily a war winner, in spite of being a jet. What ultimately did-in Japan was lack of resources and the scale of production in the US, not inferior technology. Having their code broken didn't help either, but the same thing happened to the Germans.

It is certainly possible to overstate the excellence of the Japanese military in WW2 but it's quite possible to understate it as well. In design terms, the only thing they really lagged at in the later war was was tanks and maybe mobile artillery.

 

[Gary Cain]

Japan faced some immense challenges in WW2, but so did every country. The US lagged behind in many aspects of weapons design during the war, some of which took years to rectify. The Mk 13 and 14 torpedoes for example. Many early US aircraft designs such as the F2A, P-39, TBD Devastator also did poorly, and many of the aircraft which ultimately had significant success were deeply flawed and / or had major, extended teething problems (P-38, P-40, P-47, F4U, SB2C) and / or relied heavily on technology transfers from the UK (P-51). The F6F and B-29 were more successful but came relatively late in the war.

I would say your summation above is a breathtaking under-estimate of Japanese military technology and capabilities. Aside from destroying the US surface fleet at Peal Harbor, they conquered Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Philippines with a swiftness that shocked the world, and their navy proved equally devastating - major setbacks such as Midway not withstanding - well into 1943. They were relatively slow to develop radar (though they did have it) but the fact that their torpedoes worked, unlike ours, and the skill they demonstrated at night combat meant that they were extremely dangerous in war at sea. Their aircraft like the D3A were highly effective and sunk many US ships while the A6M and Ki-43 took a very heavy toll on Allied aircraft and remained quite dangerous for allied pilots through the mid-war.

For a relatively small island they held their own remarkably well. The late war Japanese aircraft designs may have come too late but they were hardly inferior. A6M, Ki-43, Ki-61 and Ki-44 (as well as the D3A) were competitive designs into the mid war. J2M, N1K1, Ki-84, Ki-67, B7N, Ki-83 etc. were all highly competitive, world-class designs through the end of the war, they just didn't make enough of them. Experimental planes like the J7W were innovative and high performing, and they were working on jets derived from German designs (see the Kikka). Nor was the P-80 necessarily a war winner, in spite of being a jet. What ultimately did-in Japan was lack of resources and the scale of production in the US, not inferior technology. Having their code broken didn't help either, but the same thing happened to the Germans.

It is certainly possible to overstate the excellence of the Japanese military in WW2 but it's quite possible to understate it as well. In design terms, the only thing they really lagged at in the later war was was tanks and maybe mobile artillery.

Their small arms were pretty execrable as well. Their pistols were ungainly and underpowered, their rifles while strong, were crude. The only MG they had that was worth a damn was the Type 99. I happen to love the slow rate of fire on the Type 96, which in the 6.5 chambering is a very effective sniper rifle! But as a LMG it is lacking. Their tanks, as you mentioned were terrible, but, they were using them against primitive people for the most part, so like any bully, they didn't really figure out they were bad till they met up with a bigger bully.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, sure. But a couple of responses to that -

1) They seemed to make them work, including against US and British troops. Soviets too during the early war, even when they lost Kallinin Gol.
2) Most everyone in early ww2 at least was using fairly primitive handguns and machine guns. Mostly WW I vintage. Including for defensive guns on planes. Lewis guns, Vickers guns, the M1919, none were really outstanding. The Soviet, French and Italian guns ranged from dismal to not so great. The Bren was pretty good (a Czech design). And the Americans really liked their M2. But really the only truly outstanding LMG / MMG I think was the MG 34/ 42 series right?

The US had a good rifle in the Garand but most of the rifles being used around the world in the early war were great big bolt action bohemoths with five round magazines. The Germans eventually had some good and innovative designs, the US had the Thompson, M1911 and BAR which had some utility. The Soviets had their quite formidable PPsh.

But I guess as bad as some of the Japanese crew served weapons were, they seemed to make it work most of the time. The only glaring hole in their arsenal that I see is really their tanks, maybe artillery I'm not certain.

 

[Gary Cain]

Well, sure. But a couple of responses to that -

1) They seemed to make them work, including against US and British troops. Soviets too during the early war, even when they lost Kallinin Gol.
2) Most everyone in early ww2 at least was using fairly primitive handguns and machine guns. Mostly WW I vintage. Including for defensive guns on planes. Lewis guns, Vickers guns, the M1919, none were really outstanding. The Soviet, French and Italian guns ranged from dismal to not so great. The Bren was pretty good (a Czech design). And the Americans really liked their M2. But really the only truly outstanding LMG / MMG I think was the MG 34/ 42 series right?

The US had a good rifle in the Garand but most of the rifles being used around the world in the early war were great big bolt action bohemoths with five round magazines. The Germans eventually had some good and innovative designs, the US had the Thompson, M1911 and BAR which had some utility. The Soviets had their quite formidable PPsh.

But I guess as bad as some of the Japanese crew served weapons were, they seemed to make it work most of the time. The only glaring hole in their arsenal that I see is really their tanks, maybe artillery I'm not certain.

Based on longevity the M1919 and M2 series of Browning designed machine guns rank as among the best ever, even though they are basically modifications of the WWI designed M1917. The MG34 LMG is truly the worlds first General Purpose Machine Gun, or GPMG for short. And while I loved mine it was indeed prone to jamming at the drop of a hat. They had to be kept clean but, when mounted to a Lafette tripod were incredibly deadly.

The MG42 though.... that is, by far, the finest GPMG ever designed to this day, in my opinion. I owned the modern version of it, the MG3, and the ease of operation, the reliability, and the accuracy of it on the tripod were simply astonishing. You can field strip it in 10 seconds. You can do a barrel change in 2 seconds with some practice. There is no other GPMG that comes close to the MG 42 design. Which itself owes a lot to the Czech designers too, using a derivation of the roller delayed blowback.

As far as subguns, the TSMG is one of my favorites, but as a combat weapon the PPSh41 is better. Cruder, for sure, but better. The MP-40 is delightful to shoot, while the TSMG is a bit of a beast. I still own a Colt 1921 TSMG and love it, but I would never use it in a war unless it was all I had. The Japanese Type 100 was anemic at best, and weighs a ton. My friend and I got to take a close look at the one held by the J.M. Davis Museum in Oklahoma, they removed it from the display so we could photograph and measure it. But, not something I would want to trust my life too!

In the pistol world the major combatants, save Italy, and Japan, had some pretty outstanding pistols. The P-38 lives on in the Walther P-5, though the later Walther offerings are based on Browning's system. Pretty much every pistol made today, with rare exception, is based on Browning's design. Which is a testament to just how good it is.

The Japanese tanks were simply awful. Slow, undergunned, not reliable, and better suited as semi mobile pillboxes.

Their AA HMG was terrible, 13mm but fired from a box magazine that held I think 25 rounds, so you had better be on target first off or you are done for.

Their artillery though, wasn't that bad to be honest. Their 25MM AAA system was quite deadly up to about 13000 feet. They had a very effective 75mm AA gun as well. They had a very effective 47mm AT gun that was quite problematic for the M3 light, and the M4 couldn't show its flank to them either.

They had a 70mm Infantry gun which was about half as effective as our 75mm Pack Howitzer that the airborne troops used. They also had several different types of 105mm howitzer at their disposal, one was horrible (I don't remember the Model) the others were fairly decent, if a little on the clunky side. What the Japanese lacked though, was effective artillery doctrine. Nobody except for the US and the Soviets had good artillery tactics.

The Soviets simply used the brute force and massive ignorance system, and parked their artillery wheel to wheel and conducted rolling barrages which destroyed pretty much everything within range.

We used a Time on Target system where the Arty battalions would be linked together and when a call came in they would fire in such a way that all of their rounds, no matter from how far away, would land on target at the same time. Very devastating when it worked correctly, which was most of the time.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I got to try the MG3 when I was in the Army. The Bundeswehr guys were amazing with it. They could coax a single round out of our (terrible, IMO) M-60s. On the tripod they could hit targets 1 km away. Supposedly our M-60 was derived from the MG 42 but it didn't seem to work nearly as well, less accurate, about half the ROF, jammed constantly no matter how clean etc.. The Belgian FN one (which I think is what we use now?) was good - reliable and accurate compared to ours - but not as scary as that MG3. We tried the PK too, which didn't have the range of ours but seeemd to weigh half as much as the M60, and never jammed that I saw.

Our of our kit, everyone loved the M2 and the Mark 19, including me, but what impressed me the most was probably the little 60mm mortars. Those things are scary. In terms of the size of the machine vs. lethality, I'd say it's pretty high up there.

US artillery doctrine and systems were probably the most effective part of the US war machine and certainly the best artillery in WW2. But the Japanese certainly had their strengths as well as US soldiers and marines experienced at Iwo Jima and Okinawa etc., back to the Philippines. The Soviets were very good with rockets and by the war's end, had a lot of very heavy guns. The British worked out probably the late war's best close air support system which we also adapted. The Germans had the best early war CAS and certainly quite effective artillery and very, very good AT guns. But eventually it all fell apart under that Soviet sledgehammer.

Interesting to learn about the Japanese artillery. I would assume their doctrine would differ from ours in part due to a different relationship with supply and abundance of materiel.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I would be interested in how people here rank the CAS systems for each major country in WW2 - British, US (navy vs. army), Soviet, German, Japanese (navy vs. army), Italian, Finnish, French whatever. Maybe for early vs. late war (with some participants not around in the later period).

The big question and probably the most controversial in here, is how effective was the Soviet CAS. The Sturmovik, the Pe-2, the fighters armed with rockets. A lot of people say they weren't very... but somebody wrecked a lot of German tanks on the Eastern Front.

 

[GregP]

I would be interested in how people here rank the CAS systems for each major country in WW2 - British, US (navy vs. army), Soviet, German, Japanese (navy vs. army), Italian, Finnish, French whatever. Maybe for early vs. late war (with some participants not around in the later period).

The big question and probably the most controversial in here, is how effective was the Soviet CAS. The Sturmovik, the Pe-2, the fighters armed with rockets. A lot of people say they weren't very... but somebody wrecked a lot of German tanks on the Eastern Front.

I'm not too sure anybody says the late-war Soviet CAS system was ineffective. Early on, yes. Later, no way.

The Soviets went from being shot down in droves to having a sky that German aircraft were not very safe in. At the end, their Air Force was a good as it needed to be to defeat the Nazi Luftwaffe. And, they absorbed a LOT of the Luftwaffe's strength, not just a small amount.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

As far as the OP, the other tricky part to me, aside from the definition of "maneuverability" which I got into earlier, is does the aircraft have some performance as well. Can it dive or climb away?

Some aircraft were described in many period and postwar analysis as "maneuverable" but did not have a good turn rate at any speed - like the FW 190. Some others were maneuverable either in turn rate or roll or both, but just didn't have the speed to escape and engagement. The turn rate can give you a chance to escape a firing pass, if you see it coming, but the pilot of a plane like a Fiat G.50 or an I.153, or a Hurricane, didn't have any way to escape an engagement from most enemy aircraft they faced. A P-40 or a Wildcat could turn and roll to evade or catch an opponent, and then dive away to escape. In the BoB, a Spitfire could out turn and potentially out run a Bf 109E (just) but the latter could out dive them to disengage.

Bf 109s seem to have been able to climb away from many Allied fighters, and A6Ms, Ki-27s, and Ki-43s could do this sometimes too, as long as they had some separation. P-38s could climb away from A6Ms in a high speed climb, and once they had the boosted ailerons they could roll to evade.

I think if performance is pretty close, maneuverability makes a big difference. If there is a major performance advantage, the side with the faster higher flying better accelerating plane wins out. Being able to disengage when you need to is a major factor. Turning well can be part of that, but only if performance is comparable. Extra performance also helps you catch enemy aircraft and pick your targets in a combat area.

But we also do see sometimes where obsolete planes like I-153s, Ki-27s, P-36, and CR 42 kind of got a temporary new lease on life either as a fighter bomber or tertiary fighter, simply because they were so agile compared to the later war planes that they were quite hard to hit.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'm not too sure anybody says the late-war Soviet CAS system was ineffective. Early on, yes. Later, no way.

The Soviets went from being shot down in droves to having a sky that German aircraft were not very safe in. At the end, their Air Force was a good as it needed to be to defeat the Nazi Luftwaffe. And, they absorbed a LOT of the Luftwaffe's strength, not just a small amount.

Well there seems to be a lot of doubt as to the efficacy of the Il-2, both cannon and rockets, against German AFVs, in posts I've seen here and elsewhere. Certainly we know that even in the later war the Soviets were still losing a lot of aircraft.

It does seem to me though that they developed a highly effective CAS system, with the combination of their heavy GA aircraft (the IL-2 and derivations) and their to me highly underrated dive bomber the Pe 2, and their fighter-bombers.

 

[Gary Cain]

I got to try the MG3 when I was in the Army. The Bundeswehr guys were amazing with it. They could coax a single round out of our (terrible, IMO) M-60s. On the tripod they could hit targets 1 km away. Supposedly our M-60 was derived from the MG 42 but it didn't seem to work nearly as well, less accurate, about half the ROF, jammed constantly no matter how clean etc.. The Belgian FN one (which I think is what we use now?) was good - reliable and accurate compared to ours - but not as scary as that MG3. We tried the PK too, which didn't have the range of ours but seeemd to weigh half as much as the M60, and never jammed that I saw.

Our of our kit, everyone loved the M2 and the Mark 19, including me, but what impressed me the most was probably the little 60mm mortars. Those things are scary. In terms of the size of the machine vs. lethality, I'd say it's pretty high up there.

US artillery doctrine and systems were probably the most effective part of the US war machine and certainly the best artillery in WW2. But the Japanese certainly had their strengths as well as US soldiers and marines experienced at Iwo Jima and Okinawa etc., back to the Philippines. The Soviets were very good with rockets and by the war's end, had a lot of very heavy guns. The British worked out probably the late war's best close air support system which we also adapted. The Germans had the best early war CAS and certainly quite effective artillery and very, very good AT guns. But eventually it all fell apart under that Soviet sledgehammer.

Interesting to learn about the Japanese artillery. I would assume their doctrine would differ from ours in part due to a different relationship with supply and abundance of materiel.

You are correct. Most artillery doctrine was based on conservation of material. Hoard your munitions till there was a need, then plaster the hell out of the target. The use of artillery is universally the same, have an FO direct the fire to the target etc. the difference between us and everyone else was the ability to drop multiple calibers, from multiple batteries, from multiple directions and ranges onto the target at the same time. No one else had that ability.

And yes the British 2nd TAF was devastating when it got up and running. Helped a lot by the capabilities of the aircraft involved.


And back to the MG3, I could get two shot bursts out of it, and yeah, long range accuracy was outstanding.