P40C vs A6M2

[krieghund]

Time to jazz up this section I collected this comparison along time ago, there was to be a comparison no2 bf109E vs spitfire mk1 but I never found it.

Enjoy

 

[Achi]

Very interesting,Krieghund.I hope there is someone who could provide us with the other comparison.

 

[Micdrow]

Many thanks!!!

 

[renrich]

Very interesting and no doubt a somewhat accurate comparison. The fact is however, that the AVG seldom if ever met the A6M in combat. The AVG was more likely to meet the Ki 27 and Ki43. The Ki27 was a fixed gear fighter with two 7.7 mm MGs and was much slower than the A6M and the Ki43 was somewhat comparable to the A6M but with only two 12.7 MGs. Personally, I believe the vaunted AVG record of kills versus the Japanese in the first six months of the war is highly exaggerated.

 

[Milosh]

I have to question the authors logic.

If the P-39 (213sqft) is considered a failure because of a smaller wing area than the P-40 (236sqft), then the La-5 (188sqft), Fw190A (197sqft) and Me109 (173sqft) must be considered utter disasters.

see 'Introduction'.

All in all though, an interesting article.

 

[buffnut453]

Very interesting and no doubt a somewhat accurate comparison. The fact is however, that the AVG seldom if ever met the A6M in combat. The AVG was more likely to meet the Ki 27 and Ki43. The Ki27 was a fixed gear fighter with two 7.7 mm MGs and was much slower than the A6M and the Ki43 was somewhat comparable to the A6M but with only two 12.7 MGs. Personally, I believe the vaunted AVG record of kills versus the Japanese in the first six months of the war is highly exaggerated.

Renrich,

The AVG never flew against A6Ms, They reported claims against the A6M because the Ki-43 was not recognised as a distinct aircraft until long after the Flying Tigers had been disbanded. Quite why the Allies failed to comprehend the rivalries between the Japanese Army and Navy, and the different design bureaux for their respective Air Arms is one of those mysteries that really should be studied by historians.

Regards,
Mark

 

[timshatz]

Renrich,

The AVG never flew against A6Ms, They reported claims against the A6M because the Ki-43 was not recognised as a distinct aircraft until long after the Flying Tigers had been disbanded. Quite why the Allies failed to comprehend the rivalries between the Japanese Army and Navy, and the different design bureaux for their respective Air Arms is one of those mysteries that really should be studied by historians.

Regards,
Mark

It's covered but not focused on the Air Arms. In general, the competition between the IJN and IJA is well known and fairly well covered. The air arms are looked at as just an extension of the main brawl between the two of them.

A similar situation occured between most Naval and Army forces throughout the world, but not to the extreme you had with the Japanese empire.

 

[renrich]

I have learned, on this forum, to never be absolutely positive about anything and usually remember to refrain from that which is why I said seldom, if ever. One other advantage the A6M, as well as the Ki43, had over the P40 was pilot visibility. It is interesting that the Japanese seemed to pay more attention to all around visibility long before the US and the Europeans did. Maybe it had something to do with not wanting to be hit.

There is no question in my mind that the A6M was one of the premier fighters in the world in 1941 and, overall, was superior to the P40.

 

[buffnut453]

Hi Tim,

It's fair to say that the Allies recognized there were differing factions within the Japanese military at the strategic level but, from my reading, there was little if any comprehension of the impact at operational/tactical levels.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[timshatz]

Hi Tim,

It's fair to say that the Allies recognized there were differing factions within the Japanese military at the strategic level but, from my reading, there was little if any comprehension of the impact at operational/tactical levels.

Cheers,
Mark

Hey Buff,

Think that is one you could toss around all over the place for a long time. The Japanese, to my mind, ran a very sloppy war with regards to logistics and overall planning. That did reach down to the operational/tactical level, forcing the troops to compensate of failures started far above their rank. The troops had a bad war because the planners ran a lousy one.

A couple of points, the Japanese had something like three or four different 7.7MM round. Rimmed, rimmless, I am not an expert in any way with the point, but the US standardized on 3 major cartridges (.30, .50 and 20MM) for their military. It seemed the Japanese produced a new cartridge almost every time they produced a new weapon.

Logistics, the Army and Navy ran their own cargo fleets, without communicating with each other about requirements. There was no central shipping office with regards to convoying and moving of goods. So an Army ship that took cargo to a place like Java, would return in ballast instead of going to Borneo and picking up oil or rubber to bring back.

In terms of aircraft, it is less clear cut. But planners for air attacks wanted bombers that could attack out to a range beyond that of the fighter escort. But the bombers themselves were not surviveable against any decent fighter opposition.

In short, they never really organized themselves to fight a military that was based on an economy many times larger than their own. And when the results of these failures were obvious, they simply pushed their soliders and sailors harder, even to the point of suicide attacks, to make up for their incompetence.

Really, after the war, the Japanese troops probably should've put their leaders on trial for sending them off to fight against an enemy that they had no real chance of beating.

IMHO.

 

[buffnut453]

Tim,

Interesting inputs - I wasn't aware of the problems with differing ammunition.

It always puzzled me that the IJAAF and IJN seldom cooperated, even when operating in very similar roles in the same theatre.

As to your final point, I tend to agree. The Japanese leadership hugely overestimated the impact of "will" on the battlefield coupled with concommitant underestimation of the importance of economics and industrial capacity on strategic prosecution of the war.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[timshatz]

Tim,

Interesting inputs - I wasn't aware of the problems with differing ammunition.

It always puzzled me that the IJAAF and IJN seldom cooperated, even when operating in very similar roles in the same theatre.

As to your final point, I tend to agree. The Japanese leadership hugely overestimated the impact of "will" on the battlefield coupled with concommitant underestimation of the importance of economics and industrial capacity on strategic prosecution of the war.

Cheers,
Mark

Agreed Buff. They kind of went through the same process the French went through in WW1 when they thought that "Elan" and the spirit of the offensive would overcome all obstacles. Just didn't work out that way. But the French figured it out by 1917 (with the help of a mutiny). The Japanese never really accepted it.

It always amazes me how many Generals are willing to throw their troops into futile attack after futile attack believing the next one will be "the breakthrough" they need. It seems to come every generation or so. There are plenty of good Generals who figure it out right away but there is always some chowderhead who thinks a bullet will yield to a solider with good morale.

The thing about the Japanese military was the Govt System that existed in Japan in the 30s was a triad of Army, Navy and Civilian. The idea was the Civilian Sector would balance out the activities of the Army and Navy. In reality, the Army and Navy tended to assasinate those who stood against them (In and out of uniform) and the Civilian sector was cowed. The Army and Navy ended up doing anything they wanted and killing the civilian leaders that spoke out. As a consequence, a country with limited resources ended up fighting just about everyone in the Northern Hemisphere of the Pacific Rim and substituting "martial spirit" in lieu of Technical or Logistical support.

A lot of Japanese troops ended up dying on the end of a supply line that had collapsed (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Burma) because the planning for the campaign was so horrendeously poor.

Really criminal.

 

[Just Schmidt]

I have to question the authors logic.

If the P-39 (213sqft) is considered a failure because of a smaller wing area than the P-40 (236sqft), then the La-5 (188sqft), Fw190A (197sqft) and Me109 (173sqft) must be considered utter disasters.

see 'Introduction'.

All in all though, an interesting article.

Inddeed a very interesting piece, with explanations of some of the technicalities I've been yearning to know more about for years.

But of course there are some simplifications and considering of facts out of context. The 39's manouverability benefitted from having the engine in the centre og G, on the other hand the flight characteristics were hugely affected by expanding the ammonition from the nose guns, especially the 37'.

 

[buffnut453]

A lot of Japanese troops ended up dying on the end of a supply line that had collapsed (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Burma) because the planning for the campaign was so horrendeously poor.

Really criminal.

Entirely agree. That, coupled with dogmatic training that reduce the opposition to the status of animals, ensured the Far East theatres would be a crucible of human suffering.

 

[renrich]

I have read that the language of the Japanese as regards cultural imperatives ( for example, an inability to positively say that such and such mission is bound to fail) was a significant handicap for the Japanese in prosecuting the war. Their culture as regards surrender and treatment of the enemy resulted in the war in the Pacific morphing into a racist war.

 

[gjs238]

Wonder how things would have gone had the "Japs Jerries" performed a coordinated assault on the Soviet Union.

 

[VG-33]

Wonder how things would have gone had the "Japs Jerries" performed a coordinated assault on the Soviet Union.

Japs in Siberia?

Explain us haw can hou fight in Taïga, +40°C in summer with giant mosquitos that sucking trough 5 mm rubber boots, -60° in winter? Just look at it:

Are you sure that Japs were looking for trees in bond and mud rather than petrol?

Moreover each time they fought against soviets the Japanees were hugely faceshmashed twice: at Khasan lake and at Nomonhan river. I'm not sure they kept the taste for a third attempt. Moreover unlike european soviet boarders, siberian ones were well protected with a lot of fortifications as in Mannerheim line... In fact, Stalin need no "lebenstraum" here, the density of population in that aera were less than 1-2 hab/km², and had no plans for invading china.

And even if russian (what if) lost the battle on frontiers, look the picture twice. I'm far from being sure that a japaneese victory could have been exploited any longer and lead to a deep advance in siberia. Hidden in the bush, in that fight condition a single "Derzuu Uzala" in his kind or any siberian hunter could take advantage over 100 men strong japanees company.

Of course this is a free forum, everyone can post or exchange: no minimum cultural or geographical level required, but that's the limit; some should make an effort sometimes...Or just to make a trip there.
And glance on a siberian 1941th map for instance. The country was much wilder and underdevelloped than owerdays.

Regards anyway

 

[timshatz]

Wonder how things would have gone had the "Japs Jerries" performed a coordinated assault on the Soviet Union.

A question a lot of people speculate on. Tough to answer.

The effectiveness of Japan in Siberia would've been more about keeping various Soviet forces busy than actually attaining anything. As shown in the pic, Siberia is a pretty wild place and Japan did not have the industrial or logistical ability to keep a large Army supplied into the hinterland. If you look at another large area where Japan tried that (China), they ended up being mostly around the coast where they could be supplied by sea.

In Siberia, even that advantage would've been negated. You would have an army without decent engineering equipment trying to build roads to keep troops supplied with Trucks it didn't have. For the Japanese, Siberia would've been a mess. Every 50 miles further you go is further away from the Base of operations on a very weak line of communication.

The whole thing would probably end up being a battle up and down the Transiberian railroad trying to gain control and keep it working for both sides.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Back to the discussion of the P-40C versus A6M2:

The AVG DID know what a A6M looked like as compared to a Ki-43. They acquired one, test flew it and then sent it back to the USA to Curtiss. I believe there were a couple more that were captured not in flyable condition (sawed through the wing spars to move the plane) at some point. The Aleutian Zero can be identified by the broken off antenna mast. The AVG Zero can be identified by the custom louvered cooling vents in the engine accessory area.

Regarding the document: I don't believe credit is given for the extraordinary measures used for weight saving for the A6M. "The Eagles of Mitsubishi" by Jiro Horikoshi covers quite a lot more than just omitting armour and self sealing tanks. Also notable is using the G-loading and wind gusts to calculate the maximum diving speed of the Zero. I have stated this in other forums as well, but I don't believe that folks realise that the roll rate of the Zero was actually VERY good at low to medium speeds. Those huge ailerons were there for a reason. Check out You-Tube videos of Steve Hinton flying a A6M5 and his comments about the roll rate as compared to a Hellcat. The roll rate of the P-40C wasn't all that impressive at low speeds from the graph I have seen from "America's Hundred Thousand". The roll rate of the P-40C got much better as speeds increased.

Comments?
- Ivan.

 

[buffnut453]

The AVG DID know what a A6M looked like as compared to a Ki-43

Ivan,

I agree certain members of the AVG may have known what the A6M looked like but they did not differentiate between it and the Ki-43. Allied intel thought the A6M and the Ki43 were the same aircraft until 1943.

Cheers,
Mark