SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
We need an insightful award.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
True, and resources taken to make something is only an important measure if the ability to make something is equal in both nations.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
In addition to Snautzer01's comments, it should be noted that the US economy was much larger.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Analyzing fighter to fighter combat may (or may not) tell you which fighter was "better" or a better "buy" against that one type of fighter.
What else were the P-47s or Oscars shooting down (bombers/recon planes, etc) and/or what else were they doing? 4 P-47s strafing an air field (or freighter or ????) is going to put 4 times as many bullets per second into the target area as four Oscars. Where either one used as fighter bombers? Did either one accompany bombers and if so did one protect their bombers better than the other?
What else were the P-47s or Oscars shooting down (bombers/recon planes, etc) and/or what else were they doing? 4 P-47s strafing an air field (or freighter or ????) is going to put 4 times as many bullets per second into the target area as four Oscars. Where either one used as fighter bombers? Did either one accompany bombers and if so did one protect their bombers better than the other?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
100%, BUT also consider the stress on the pilot, flying for hours then having to engage miles from home, and then having the trip back (providing there were no issues during combat). I can see how this limited the Zero's effectiveness in these situations.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes and no - on paper the Zero should had decimated the F4F, but then again look at some of the opponents the Fins faced with the Buffalo. As mentioned a gazillion times before, the Buffalos operated by the Finns were very different than those operated by VMF-221.
30% aircraft, 50% pilot skill, 20% tactics...
Conslaw
Senior Airman
Flyboy, I agree with you. I think the Japanese Navy, comfortable that the A6M-21 COULD fly 600 mile missions, maybe should have spent some time thinking whether they SHOULD fly those missions. I think it was late 1942 (November or December?), that they opened an airfield on Munda between Rabaul and Guadalcanal. By that time, the battle on the ground at Guadalcanal was lost even though the troops wouldn't evacuate until Feb. 1943. Japan should have been building forward airfields starting in August 1942.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
Snautzer01, I agree with you; but what choice did Japan have? The IJA essentially had 3 single-engine fighter types in 1943, the Ki-43-II, the Ki-61 ("Tony"), and the Ki-44. The Ki-44 on paper seems to match up the best against the P-47, but I can't find anything that says the Ki-44 ever operated out of New Guinea. The Ki-61 and Ki-44 both had maintenance issues, and monthly production of either of these planes did not exceed 42/month through the middle of 1943. In contrast, P-47 production averaged 360/month over the course of its production run.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The Japanese did start building a forward airfield around August 1942. It was at Guadalcanal but quickly changed ownership.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The distance from Rabaul to Guadalcanal is 661 miles. The IJN/IJA had plenty of other islands in the Solomon's to build airfields.
If they had focused on saturating the islands with airbase (and not just seaplane bases) they would have had both a better search/combat radius as well as overlapping defenses.
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
Not attaking and pissing off the largest economy and well funded country would be a novel idea. Should have stuck with china dutch indies. Or any other nation that was already in conflict in the West.
There is also an X factor. If you conduct combat missions in single engined aircraft 600 miles away, not only do you need great navigation skills but a huge amount of luck that eventually you run out of. Joachim Marseille was shot down and bailed out in the Channel a month after his first combat and rescued after 3 hours in the water with exposure. That could easily have been his last mission across a stretch of water only 21 to 40 miles in that area.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 556
- Apr 23, 2007
Were the A6M2s having to fight with their drop tanks still attached?
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I read that in WW2 the AAF took 9 months to train a fighter pilot and he graduated with 200 flying hours in the various trainers. The Navy pilots graduated with 600 flying hours, but I don't know how many months.
Escuadrilla Azul
Master Sergeant
- 2,312
- Feb 27, 2020
Well, Japan just did that.
They invaded french Indochina in two steps (1940 and 1941) and prompted the US embargoes that led to the decision to strike Pearl, The Philipines et all.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
They didn't because they couldn't. Interservice rivalry was only part of the problem. Saburo Sakai marveled at the huge American invasion fleet at Guadalcanal. The US hadn't even got its act together yet.
Last edited:
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
I said should not have attacked the us. So they did not do what i advised.
That 200 hrs is advanced training. BoB pilots were being sent to squadrons with 50 hrs and that was no where near enough. The P-51B/Cs first "job" was as advanced trainer for the guys who would use it.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I believe the 200 hours for AAF pilots included the last 40 hours in a combat plane, likely a P-39 or P-40. The rest of the hours were in basic and advanced trainers.
Army Air Corps Flight Training in WWII
AAF (scharch.org)
Each cadet was given 60 hours of flight training in nine weeks before moving on the basic flight school.
During basic flight training, a cadet received approximately 70 hours in the air during a nine week period.
Those who went to single-engine school flew AT-6s for the first 70 hours during a nine week period, learning aerial gunnery and combat maneuvers and incresing their skills in navigation, formation, and instrument flying.
AAF (scharch.org)
Each cadet was given 60 hours of flight training in nine weeks before moving on the basic flight school.
During basic flight training, a cadet received approximately 70 hours in the air during a nine week period.
Those who went to single-engine school flew AT-6s for the first 70 hours during a nine week period, learning aerial gunnery and combat maneuvers and incresing their skills in navigation, formation, and instrument flying.
Last edited:
