Admittedly, I was intending on primarily discussion the obsession the Japanese had with maneuverability, evident in some of their designs, in particular, the wings. I probably should have named this topic "Wing Area, Maneuverability, and Speed" or similar, or have discussed wing loading and wing area more in my opening post. This would have provided a clue for what part of "maneuverability" I'm focusing on, which is turn-rate, and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll-rate. This is part of a bigger discussion on the significance of turn-fighting and whether or not turn-fighters like the Zero truly were as advanced, and perhaps, as crushingly superior, as people across the internet seemingly consider them to have been, especially in their prime.
Like I mentioned, climb and dive can also be part of maneuverability (which you could group together as 'vertical turning' per the Soviets). This was particularly important for the A6M.
I think the Japanese emphasis on maneuverability was not as delusional as has been suggested. They were lagging a bit in engine development (though I would argue, they did catch up) and they had enormous distances to contend with, without an immediate need for winning an intensive air superiority fight over a battlefield (as they had the Chinese and Soviets beaten in air to air combat) nor to defend their homeland from strikes. Excellent maneuverability + superb training gave them a pronounced edge in early air combat which was almost unparraleled (Germans early victories over the Soviet VVS were similar). But the Japanese were winning these victories over better trained and equipped US and British forces.
In part, I would argue they were making the same bet that the Germans were - on an overwhelming, annihilating victory in war conducted over the short term, rather than a long term war of attrition which they knew they couldn't win against enemies like the US and USSR. They turned out to have made a strategic mistake here, but given that they wanted to fight (which was, in both cases, in large part down to a delusional ideology by the national leaders, and in itself a strategic error) this was really their only strategy.
Which brings us to the fact that the top early war Japanese fighters - A6M and the oft forgotten Ki-43, were clearly quite well suited to winning crushing victories over the short term. They were able to dominate most Allied fighters in the early days of the war, including Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40s, P-39s, F2A and Wildcats. It was only with adjustments to strategy that a few of these types (Wildcats, P-40s, and eventually Spitfires) were able to basically hold their own. No Allied types, except maybe the P-38 was really overwhelmingly successful against the first-line Japanese fighters until well into 1943.
It took quite a while for Allied pilots to work out the 'best practices' for contending with Japanese fighters, and it was done gradually and at great cost in lives lost. The Japanese armed forces did not field as many aircraft as the Germans did but they proved to be extremely formidable. I don't think many Allied pilots took Japanese fighters lightly. Even P-38, Hellcat and Corsair aces were being killed right to the end of the war.
Late-war Japanese aircraft were beset with constant issues with their engines, and there was also the problem of oil leakage.
I think almost all of the late war high HP aircraft had a fair number of development issues. F4U certainly did. P-38 definitely did. Look at the Soviet Vk-106 engine. Shall we talk about the Typhoon? How many new engine types in the US, UK, and Germany were heavily delayed or cancelled?
I think the Japanese had similar teething issues, exacerbated by the fact that they didn't standardize their parts (though this was also the case with some British and most Soviet aircraft as well) and the strategic problems they had vis a vis supply and then bombing of their homeland.
Constant bombing, a problem exacerbated by seemingly feeble anti-air defenses and issues with intercepting relatively quick, high-flying B-29s, would certainly have not helped.
This is certainly true, but it was quite a late development. But I think you are conflating aircraft
design issues with production, supply and maintenance which are different matters.
The US were also experimenting with technologies such as night vision equipment for foot soldiers, with some success.
Really? Successful night vision for infantry in WW2? That would be news to me. They were still having trouble getting this to work in Vietnam. Do you have a source for that?
Their battleships also had more advanced fire control systems onboard than those of the Japanese, like Yamamoto's floating hotel the Yamato. Also, good workmanship, unless it involved some novel manufacturing equipment/process, isn't inherently innovative.
The US had radar controlled guns which proved useful in a couple of battles, but the Japanese came out on top in most of the surface combat through the end of 1943. There was nothing second rate about Japanese warships. They were superior to every navy in the world except the USN, and the USN only barely got an edge over them, and only gradually.
The Japanese exploited American and (distracted) British incompetence and weakness to have advanced so rapidly.
Couldn't you say the same thing for the Germans? Or almost any successful army? I'm fine with making this point so long as it's made consistently.
MacArthur failing to do anything to stop the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, dithering on striking Japanese Taiwan, and there is also the case of inadequate British preparation to counter an invasion through the Malay Peninsula, the guns in Singapore being an infamous example of this... The French strategy seemed to be more competent, at least in theory; their lack of consideration for a tank offensive through the Ardennes appeared to be more sensible, and the German plan was extremely risky and daring anyways. Meanwhile, a non-negligible part of the Japanese element of surprise was down to misinterpretation, if not outright dismissal, of radar readings. The Japanese also had plenty of their own nonsensical decisions that boggle the mind and could make one question their authenticity, such as the supposed refusal to adopt radar because active radar equipment could have increased the chances of being detected. Adequately-equipped, motivated and trained soldiers could also inflict costly tolls on the Japanese even early in the war, from what I've heard. Also, the P-40 took quite the toll on the IJAAF in China.
The early P-40 success was largely against second tier fighters (like Ki-27) and by the time they were facing Ki-43 they had improved P-40s with much improved tactics. The speed / diving advantage in particular became more pronounced, which was largely a factor of Ki-43 development going very slowly, but newer types like Ki-44 and Ki-61 were more challenging.
In turn-fights, probably. World-class? Maybe if the F6F was world-class. It wasn't an unimpressive aircraft, to say the least.
I think the F6F was indeed world class. It compares well to any fighter of it's era, and more than held it's own when they did face German fighters.
When I see the world-class in reference to late-war aviation, images of the Ta-152, Sea Fury,
Ta 152, F8F, Sea Fury, P-47N fought how many engagements in WW2?
P-51D, F8F, Hornet, P-47N and La-7 come to mind. Pacific-class? Until 1945, that is. The Ki-83 and Ki-64 could maybe have been world-class had they debuted in 1944, if they managed to achieve specifications.
As far as aircraft actually fielded in combat in some numbers, N1K1, Ki-84, J2M and Ki-44 were certainly world class.
Estimates for the J7W1 suggest an uncomfortably slow climb-rate, dimming its prospects somewhat, but with testing coming to end with the war's conclusion, it's hard to say with any confidence. The J7W1 prototype that did fly did not exceed 300kph in speed. The J8M was 50-150kph slower than contemporary Western designs, depending on which source you refer to, and the Kikka was slower than than advanced Japanese prop designs like the Ki-64 and even the Ki-83! It's high altitude performance seemed good, but its rate of climb is horrific, worse than I thought. This slow bird of predators could easily keep up with a B-29, if it was allowed to get up that high, but come a soaring P-51D, F-82 or F-80 and [insert maniacal laughter and blood-curdling screaming here].
Fair points, but J7, Kikka etc. were experimental aircraft which never got through development during the war - much some of the others you mentioned up above. Luckily for us the Japanese ability to complete these designs was interrupted and degraded.
They didn't lag in level speed? Where's the >660kph (military power, altitude ~10km) Japanese fighter in late 1943? Where's the >900kph Japanese jet fighter in late 1944 / early 1945? Where's the radar-equipped anti-air defense network (in 1944-45) to protect the home islands? Where's the Japanese long-ranged ballistic missile in 1945?
I don't think 660 kph fighters were very typical anywhere in late 1943. The US and British were still fielding aircraft in Italy (Spit V and P-40F) with top speeds in the 600 kph range, as were the Soviets (Yak 9, Yak -1B, La 5) and Italians (MC 205) in 1943. Meanwhile The fastest Japanese fighters like J2M and Ki-84 were able to reach 640 kph. So I really don't see the wide disparity.
Even the fastest short range fighters, like the Spitfire Mk 9, Fw 190 and Bf 109G which did manage 660 kph were not necessarily invulnerable to slower types, as we can see from the combat histories. The F4U, P-51, P47 and later model P-38s, and later Tempest and Griffon engined Spitfires were all fairly rare and new in 1943.
I think eventually, the Japanese production and maintenance of their fastest designs fell behind significantly against the onset of newer Allied types, but that was really more in 1944, and by then the tide of the war had already turned.
I think a lot of the criticism of the Japanese aircraft and other kit is due to hindsight and the fact that we know who won the war. I don't think it was so obvious in 1942 or 1943 who was going to win.