This incident with the Spit 8s and the Ki43s is well covered in "Air war For Burma" by Shores. The long and the short of it is that Spit 8s were stationed at a forward Chindit Airstrip named " Broadway". It was attacked by 15 Ki 43s that engaged two Spit 8s that were able to get airborne. One Spit was shot down in the air combat as well as at least one Ki43. Four spits were destroyed on the ground. The air combat never got above 2000 ft. Not exactly a screaming endorsement of the Ki 43.
Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero
- Thread starter contrails16
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fighter opinion zero fighter
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have got a copy of Paul Richey's, "Fighter Pilot", its a great book and he was an excellent fighter pilot in Europe. I am not aware of him ever flying any combat missions in Burma as a Hurricane pilot. I will take Terrence Kelly's assessment of the Hurricane vs Ki43/Zero as he actually had extensive combat experience against them.
Can you send a link to that? I can't download that on my phone for some reason.
Ah, ok. I stated earlier that the Spit 8 was a superb aircraft.
Last edited:
I once read that the RAF at the beginning of the war stressed dogfighting and that boom-and-zoom tactics were considered "cowardly". Anyone else heard anything to that effect? It would fit the excessive conservatism that permeated the entire British military at the start of the war.
I've read that somewhere also, same for attacking from 6 o'clock on unsuspecting aircraft, apparently it was important to kill the opposing pilot but you had to be civil about it when you did.
That I did not read. However, I think it was Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" where the following was claimed: plan to ambush a particularly troublesome German bomber crew shelved by higher-ups for being "not cricket" or being condemned as "assassination".
Possible that "Although it cannot turn quickly...." came from the boom and zoom tactics used in China by Zero in the 1940 deployement
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
I wonder if that is the same intelligence that led to this gem of propaganda, where they assume the Ki-27 and A5M are the same aircraft...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That was very entertaining. I wonder what year it was made. I didn't notice any copyright date.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
I wonder that as well. I assume December 1941, or VERY early 1942.
I found the article well written and one more presentation of well known facts. Here are some additional ones (my two cents...):
1. The AVG never encountered an A6M but rather fought the Ki-43. To the untrained eye, they look "the same". Having said that, the AVGs were the first to realize a way to fight these nimble and better maneuvering Japanese fighters - they were the first to forego the "chasing the tail" dog fight in favor of the dive-fire-zoom-come back tactics.
2. The Americans only became familiar with the A6M after the recovery and flying the "Aleutian Zero" in 1942. Among other things it was discovered that due to shortcoming in the fuel supply and carburetor system, the airplane was susceptible to engine quitting during certain maneuvers such as nose over. This and other issues that were discovered during the trials were immediately relayed to operational units that adopted practices that took advantage of the A6Ms shortcomings.
3. Unlike American and to some extent British (Spitfire) designs, the A6M was a "dead-end" design - very little could be improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane. No matter how they tried, the Japanese never could develop it into an aircraft that could hold its own against the Allied new aircraft.
1. The AVG never encountered an A6M but rather fought the Ki-43. To the untrained eye, they look "the same". Having said that, the AVGs were the first to realize a way to fight these nimble and better maneuvering Japanese fighters - they were the first to forego the "chasing the tail" dog fight in favor of the dive-fire-zoom-come back tactics.
2. The Americans only became familiar with the A6M after the recovery and flying the "Aleutian Zero" in 1942. Among other things it was discovered that due to shortcoming in the fuel supply and carburetor system, the airplane was susceptible to engine quitting during certain maneuvers such as nose over. This and other issues that were discovered during the trials were immediately relayed to operational units that adopted practices that took advantage of the A6Ms shortcomings.
3. Unlike American and to some extent British (Spitfire) designs, the A6M was a "dead-end" design - very little could be improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane. No matter how they tried, the Japanese never could develop it into an aircraft that could hold its own against the Allied new aircraft.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's what I was thinking. Brody helmets, comparing Japanese aircraft with the P-36. I like the synchronized cannon under the cowling of what I assume is really the A6M.
What's your point? Yes, for about a year it was the best fighter in the Pacific, mostly because it was "misunderstood". When the Americans found out more about it, it was no longer the best. Even the Japanese recognized its shortcomings and developed much better fighters - for example the Ki-84 for the Army. Even Horikoshi realized that things have changed and his next design, the J2M was an entirely different design than the A6M.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Big Jake,
Did you do what I suggested? If not, try it out, you may be surprised at what the results indicate.
Did you do what I suggested? If not, try it out, you may be surprised at what the results indicate.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
The Americans entered the war using F2A's, F4F's, P-36's, P-40's, P-39's and P-43's.
Which of these fighters were "Improved or upgraded without developing a whole new airplane"?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
P-36 developed into P-40
F4F-3 improved via F4F-4 and FM-1/2
P-39 developed into P-63
P-43 (developed from P-35) developed into P-47
F4F-3 improved via F4F-4 and FM-1/2
P-39 developed into P-63
P-43 (developed from P-35) developed into P-47
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
P-40 is a whole new airplane, sort of.
F4F-4 is almost a step backwards, sort of.
P-63 is a whole new airplane
P-47 is a whole new airplane
None of the previous aircraft were continuously developed as first line aircraft, as was suggested to be in contrast to the A6M.
The US Navy and Army eventually got brand new designs, and THOSE were developed and improved.
