Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
When? 1943? or 1944?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When your aircrews are getting shot down left and right, you've got to be motivated to make quick improvements. This also benefitted from Swede Momsen's experiments which resulted in a more robust contact exploder, which allowed an increase in drop altitude as well.
Well, that was a pretty coherant 'no' to the idea of a kinder, more open minded and polite form of discourse then.
If someone wants a narcissistic echo-chamber, Its been my experience that its usually best to grant it to them.
Its a difficult one for me to feel I'd be able to get to the bottom of without seeing (and being able to comprehend!) an engineers report and analysis of comparative strength to weight ratios for the materials and construction - and what degree of redundancy was built into it. There might however, be an expert lurking here - I think some of the contributors have been directly involved with historical airframe servicing and restoration.However, i do not see any substantial data on the structure of the G4M as either strong or weak. And while it is true that a light structure isn't of nessessity a bad thing, you seemed to list it among draw backs. certainly the Betty lacked protection, but i do not count self sealing tanks and armour as structural deficiensies.
Its a difficult one for me to feel I'd be able to get to the bottom of without seeing (and being able to comprehend!) an engineers report and analysis of comparative strength to weight ratios for the materials and construction - and what degree of redundancy was built into it. There might however, be an expert lurking here - I think some of the contributors have been directly involved with historical airframe servicing and restoration.
Maybe comparative VNe between airframes might give some very kind of crude indication? In the following thread which I'll post a link to below, an VNe of 360mph is quoted for the early Zero marks for example. If accurate, that seems to suggest that the quest for weight reduction may have influenced redundancy and reserve of strength perhaps? Of course, that doesn't implicate the G4M directly, but I guess its a question as to how far and deep the weight saving philosophy across the Japanese manufacturers design philosophy.
It may well be that 'structural weakness' has become unfairly baked into perceptions as you say - if Japanese aircraft were bursting into flames or unprotected components and crew saw them comparatively easily shot-down by gunfire, I guess any objective appreciation of the inherent strength of the airframe would be lost.
Here's that link to the earlier thread post. I'd be interested to read what you think of the discussion that was had. Japanese lightly built carrier aircraft
When? 1943? or 1944?
Yep. I think it was Lockwood who had him set up to test for the exploder failures and that in 1943.
He discovered the metal on the firing pin was too weak, but found (according to Drachinifel in his episode on the Mk 14) a wrecked airplane or three with the right metal for the job, so they set up a small machine shop with the express purpose of making replacement pins to ship out to the fleet.
What I'm trying to figure out here is how soon did some kind of improved Mark 13 make it into the field? And do you know how soon they sorted out the other issues like not detonating, running too low, running in circles etc. etc.
When did they improve the speed? or did they?
Remember too that the magnetic field in that part of the globe was different from where the warheads were tested, so even with the problem "fixed" you still got some duds.
And then, of course, the contact-exploder design sucked and was prone to bending or shearing from by-the-book strikes, i.e. perpendicular to the target hull.
The tendency to circle is something I know less about, but I don't think they ever solved it. According to Capt Toti in one of the videos I will list below, the proclivity to circle carried forward to the Mk17 as well.
The interesting thing about this, or one of the interesting things, is how hard it was to communicate this problem up the chain of command and back to the contractors (which I think was the navy itself, right?) who were making the weapons. It's almost the grim dark counterpoint to the sunny story of the Thach Weave.
BuOrd absolutely refused to accept blame for the issues for well over a year, and I think it was ComSubPac in 1942 at Pearl who'd forbidden skippers deactivating magnetic detonators -- because he'd had a hand in designing them. The guys at BuOrd at that time were the same guys who designed the contact exploder, and refused to admit any error, b;aming the issues on sub skippers. It took a direct order from Adm King to get them to work on the problem, and this was only after the tests had started to show the flaws, undeniably, in late 1942.
IMO, the denialist behavior of BuOrd in this process amounts to criminal negligence, especially when you consider that prewar, only one live test was conducted, IIRC. One. It's shocking that not one officer there was prosecuted.
Once the problems were ironed out, by early 1944 it was a generally a good torpedo ... but tell that to the dead submarine crews.
Agree with all of that 100%. Imagine how frustrating, heartbreaking, for those skippers, and the pilots etc., who were being blamed for this catastrophe. Definitely shows a major weakness in the US system here IMO. Similar to (but more severe than) some of the problems with the P-38 etc.
Thank you for taking the time to give a reasoned answer.
However, i do not see any substantial data on the structure of the G4M as either strong or weak. And while it is true that a light structure isn't of nessessity a bad thing, you seemed to list it among draw backs. certainly the Betty lacked protection, but i do not count self sealing tanks and armour as structural deficiensies.
I can't really say how large a percentage of Japanese designs were structurally light or even weak. Some certainly were, but like the preferrence for radial engines do not make the Ki-61 a radial engined fighter, so the light structure of, say, the Ki-43 does not make the structure of specifically the G4M lightweight. Saying that the probably wasis not a proof.
Another old horse being trotted out is how armour and self sealing tanks were sacrificed in the design of the A6M. Where the Zero stands out is the time it took, far too long, before these were added to the aircraft. While some aircraft were designed in the late 30'es with protective measures incorporated (some IJAF bombers amongst them), it was not as common that exclusion was a sacrifice or a revoluitionary departure from current design praxcis. Exactly when it was becoming common, in the design process, or retrofitted as afterthought, is of course open to argument.
I think it is a shame that we know comparatively little about Japanese (and other participants planes) that we do, compared to planes like the Spitfire or B-17. That is not only because of bias, but also the availabilty of sources and ability to read what exists in the original language. No, I still don't believe Google translate suffices. But it avails us nothing to extrapolate from what we do know to what we don't know. In the case of the G4M the fact that the damn thing ligtet up so easily, will remove badly shot up aircraft returning to base from the dataset out of proportion with better protected designs with which we can, provisionally, compare them.
i sometimes consider the A6M to be both the most underrated and the most overrated aircraft of ww2. As many media want to present everything as a sensasion, first the myth of its invincibility, and then the myth of its utter uselessnes, has to be debunked over and over. we've discussed it often in this forum. And then the discussion starts over, with much of the old threads being not ignored, but rather not read. When i attempt to read everything just of current threads before posting, I often end up not posting at all.
This is partly an effect of the internet. I can mention a new (at least to me) channel on Youtube called something like 'mysterious super plane'. Both the utter thrash it presents in the videos, and the insane speed with which it puts out new videos, points to it mostly being made by chat bots.
Your post above is sort of funny Bill. You write like your opinion is the only rational opinion. It isn't, and the subject might be quite so clear cut as you indicate.A trope can mean a figure of speach, but your comment was clearly meant in the second sense, i.e. as a cliche and therefore divorced from reality.
This was the second time in a row that you suggested I was repeating some fallacy out of ignorance, while yourself repeating fallacies which are pretty obvious for anyone (including many reading this thread whether they admit it or not) who are familiar with the operational history and aircraft active in the Pacific and China / Burma / India Theaters.
Also, I'm glad you knew a pilot. But you are not the only one who knew WW2 veteran pilots.
It is very well known among aviation historians and enthusiasts (including most people in this forum) that radial engines are generally less vulnerable, in particular to smaller caliber gunfire and shrapnel, than liquid cooled engines.
This was mentioned repeatedly in the IJA and IJN fighter policies and
It was also mentioned by Japanese pilots.
These are facts. Your acceptance of the facts is irrelevant to me
The original context of this was could A6M shoot down Allied fighter aircraft with it's 7.7 mm machine guns, once the cannon ammunition ran out. The answer is yes.
The whole debate about the alleged ineffectiveness of Japanese guns is kind of made moot by looking at the operational history, such as has been recently posted in the thread, which shows that the Japanese aircraft wrought a fair amount of havoc on the American, just as they had earlier against the British.
So you are an expert on the Hineri Komi now? I posted the link to the wiki you are quoting from here, you think I don't know what it says?
I can't say what is going on inside your head, but it appears as if you are being willfully obtuse here, simply because you don't want to accept the obvious, because that would require admitting that you were wrong. Not uncommon in such debate
View attachment 727668
In that image, the American plane (which looks like a Hellcat) is in white, the Japanese plane (seems to be a Zero) is in Gray. I drew a little cone in red to portray the angle of attack.
As you can see in the image, Hineri Komi allows the Japanese pilots to attack from above and at short range. Almost at a 90 degree angle in the image. This would bypass the armor behind the pilot's seat, and expose both the engine and the pilot to attack from a largely unprotected direction.
This is also what happens when diving down from above to attack, as Japanese fighters often did, and when turning inside an opponent in a horizontal turn, as they also typically did. Japanese pilots were also trained to attack enemy aircraft from behind and below, climbing up at a steep angle, something A6Ms were particularly good at. This also bypasses the armor, if the angle is steep enough.
I originally posted all this to explain to you how it worked, because you seemed not to know a lot about Pacific Theater warfare or the Zero. Not to prove to you something you don't want to believe. I can't do the latter.
When getting in discussions like this, if they get a little heated, I try to keep in mind that I'm not only talking to the person I'm debating in a given exchange. That person may not actually want to know the answer, but may just want to win the argument. Again I don't know I can't read minds. But other people reading the thread however may want to know pertinent data
The reference to the IL2-armor is not even close to being irrelevant to the point. You suggested that the Il-2 having an inline engine was (to you, quite obvious) proof that radial engines were not less vulnerable. I pointed out that they put armor all around the engine on the Il-2. (If they hadn't, they would have been crashing at probably double the already quite high rate they were).
Your question however sounds fairly logical, and for a fact the Russian Su-2 dive bomber had a radial engine, as did dedicated ground attack aircraft of many other nations, such as the German HS 129 did have radial engines, as did say, the AD-Skyraider. I don't know enough about the history of the Il-2 to say why they didn't use their radial engine. So far as I know the Soviets did not in fact have "many excellent radials" as you put it. In fact only one which would have been powerful enough would have been the Shvestov ASh-82 which was used on the La 5 - 11 series of fighters. That may be the reason why they didn't use it.
The Wiki for the IL-2 notes: "A radial engine powered variant of the Il-2 with the Shvetsov ASh-82 engine was proposed in 1942 to remedy projected shortages in the Mikulin inline engines. However, the Shvetsov ASh-82 was also used in the new Lavochkin La-5 fighter which effectively secured all available engines to the Lavochkin bureau."
The decision to use the Mikulin inline may have been for the aerodynamics, i.e. to improve speed, as in-line engines had less drag, generally speaking. It may also not have been the wisest decision as the IL-2 had a very high loss rate. It may also have been because few other Soviet aircraft used the Mikulin. The MiG-3 used the earlier AM-35 but it was discontinued.
I'm not in the least sensitive to disagreement. I am also not going to mince words when somebody says, implies or suggests that I'm making things up or propagating rumors. I find the rumors and tropes about WW2 aircraft irritating. I spend a lot of effort trying to debunk or add nuance to those.
I'd say look in the mirror mate. John Lydon was (and still is) fairly sarcastic himself and notoriously snippy with people asking what he thought were stupid questions. Like him or not he had the gift of gab. GG Allin was pretty incoherent and was never particularly sarcastic or glib. I was never a fan.
I can't say what motivates you, I'm sure you are a nice guy and we'd probably get along fine in person. But this post comes across smug and overly self confident in particular given that you are simultaneously making it clear you are a little bit out of your depth on the subject of Pacific Theater warfare. Sometimes it's better when you don't know, just admit it and thank the other person for allowing you to learn something new. That is what I try to do (and have done throughout this thread as in many others her
Your post above is sort of funny Bill. You write like your opinion is the only rational opinion.
It isn't, and the subject might be quite so clear cut as you indicate.
Here's a table partly from American Combat planes by Ray Wagoner. It is the upper half, consisting of the USAAF in the ETO:
1) The P-47 has a loss rate per combat sortie of 0.73%. Radial.
2) The P-51D has a loss rate per combat sorties of 1.18%. Inline.
3) The P-40 has a loss rate per combat sortie of 0.82%. Inline.
4) The P-61 Black Widow has a loss rate per combat sortie of 0.69%. Radial.
5) The Spitfire (in U.S. service) has a loss rate per combat sorties of 0.66%. In;ine.
6) The Beaufighter (in U.S. Service has a loss rate per combat sorties of 0.94%. Radial.
So, the P-40 is within 0.1% of the P-47. The Spitfire has an advantage over the P-47 of 0.06%. Not too shabby for an inline. The P-515D is the worst and of course, we don't have the breakout of reasons, but it flew mostly escort and SHOULD have a higher loss rate. It amounts to 0.35%, or a 42% advantage for the P-47. But the P-47 didn't fly escort duty NEARLY as much as the P-51D did.
The claim of inline vulnerability rings a bit hollow in real life over 898,479 combat sorties and wasn't very well supported in Korea, either as I recall. In fact, they selected P-51Ds over P-47s for ground attack in Korea. Both were available in large numbers.
I used to think air-cooled radials had an advantage, too, until I looked at the actual numbers.
When you do, they look very equivalent. It;s tough to look at the Navy numbers and reach a conclusion because there are no inlines represented and USAAF aircraft rarely attack an armored ship with concentrated AAA pointing at a plane that is coming right down the barrel and not moving around much in the gunsight since it is targeting the ship. That makes hitting a dive bomber or torpedo bomber much easier than for a ground crew shooting at a plane NOT attacking them specifically.
I'm sure you can follow the facts and see it isn't nearly as one-sided for the air-cooled radials as your claim above might otherwise indicate.
The Seafires problem wasn't strength or structural, the reason they suffered damage was a result of them floating over the deck via air cushioning meaning the pilots had to fly them onto it, because they had to land them hard they would bounce back up into the air as the struts didn't have enough rebound control, the arrestor gear would then restrain the aircraft while it was in the air slamming it back down again, pretty much the same issue's the Corsair had, fitting MkIII wings could have been a good fix, lasty this type of arrestor gear also caused the plane to pivot forward like a seesaw driving the prop into the deck..hold up to carrier landings better than say, a Seafire.