Rising Sun warbirds

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I tried to crawl down to your level once, CC but it was just too large of a fall really.
 
See, thats basically what I was looking for. I was looking for more in-depth discussion but this is fine, just shows that in this forum most people do not favor Japanese planes. Case closed. 8)
 
Hey, I volunteer at a WWII aviation museum that has one of the 2 Zeroes that are still flying. I like that old bird for it's history, but I have seen it and a hellcat fly at the same time and I can tell you, it is abundant clear which aircraft is the better of the 2. Not only watching them fly together, but having pulled cowlings and panels off to get underneath, it is clear which plane was made to survive.

Very early in the war, the Zero had an almost mystical reputation that was finally proven unwarranted. It was a good fighter, early in the war. I would not have ever called it great at any time though.
 
That is what most of us are saying. Sorry Aggie but we are not going to say the Zero was the greatest thing to taxi down a runway and take off. We give the aircraft credit where it is due though.
 
I'm not looking to glorify it. It's just that American and European birds get more coverage here. I think that I got caught up in the early war mystery of the Zero and was surprised as to why it didn't receive more attention. No worries.
 
The Zero fighter in the first several months of the war in the Pacific was a great fighter. Soon outclassed, but none the less, in the hands of a good pilot, it was deadly. Perhaps its greatest assett was its tremendous range. In 1942, the allied planes could not hope to even come close to its range. In the Pacific, the distances are vast. The short ranges of supposedly "great" fighters like the Spit and the -109 made them essentialy useless.

Ive added a couple of pix for your viewing pleasure
 

Attachments

  • two_zero_small_701.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 530
  • zero_vs_wildcat_small_203.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 526
As posted in earlier threads, I don't consider the Zero a great fighter. What elevated the Zero was it's alleged "mystic" abilities mainly through poor intellegence and propaganda, which were soon countered by tactics and teamwork. It was shown in an earlier post the F4F had nearly a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero, much of that had to do with tactics and pilot skill.

Bring a Zero into a dogfight above 300 mph and it's mystical abilities were erased......
 
syscom3 said:
A kill is a kill. Untill their mystique wore off, they were a great fighter.
Click to expand...

You're right, a kill is a kill - and the Zero was shot down at a rate to almost 4 to 1 by an inferior aircraft!

The only thing that could be bestowed on the Zero was the myth created by early war lack of intellegence. It was easily defeated at speeds over 300 mph, had heavy controls in high speeds, and the lack of self-sealing tanks was abundantly indicated. It it did have great range but wasn't even the most maneuvable Japanese fighter!

Maybe you're right - the Zero was a great fighter - great for establishing myths, propaganda and it turned out to make a great target.
 
What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...
 
I would just like to comment on syscoms attack on the Spitfire calling it "supposedly 'great'" - I would like to point out that the war against the Japanese wasn't just fought in the seas of the Pacific. It was also fought in China-Burma-India, where the Spitfire and other short range British interceptors provided invaluble service against Japanese aircraft.

They may have had a short range but they were amazing machines and the Japanese had nothing to match up to the Spitfire over Burma. It achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF.

The British also stationed eight Spitfires 150 miles behind (yes, BEHIND) enemy lines during Operation Thursday. They fended off several Japanese attacks on their airfield until being told to withdraw as they were taking up space for the Dakotas.

As I said earlier in the post, the war wasn't fought all over massive distances of sea. It was also fought over jungles, mountains, paddy fields and swamp marshes. And even in a time the Hurricane had become obselete in Europe it still stood up to the IJAAF with increasing effectiveness.

I know the IJAAF didn't use the Zero but it's just a show that the British fighters were able to fight the Japanese air power with their inferior range aircraft.
 
Aggie08 said:
What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...
Click to expand...

I think the "Tojo" (KI-44) was their best interceptor - they gave any bombers that came their way (including the B-29) problems. The Tony was a good aircraft as well - it had armor....

The Frank KI-84 was probably their best over-all fighter in terms of speed, firepower and range.
 
The Spit was legendary in European theater, but essentially useless in the Pacific in the key years of 1942 and 1943. Too top it off, the CBI was a sideshow compared to what was happening in the Solomons and New Guinie. Dont forget that the Japanese airforce in 1944 was a shell compared to its former self in 1942.

The airwar in the Pacific was far different than the European airwar. Range was foremost the key to a successfull fighter in the Pacific theater. The Zero could fly non stop from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. Could any allied plane other than the Lightning be able to do that?

In Britain, the Spit was able to use radar info to excellent use by being in the right place at the right time to intercept the Germans. In the Pacific, untill late 1942, many allied bases didnt have that radar luxury other than to give a general warning to takeoff and get out of the way. I doubt the Spits could have done anything at Port Moresby or Guadalcanal. They would have run out of fuel by the time the got to altitude and caught up with the Japanese forces.
 
I see we have another non-thinker on our hands. The CBI is a sideshow in modern thinking because the CBI is a forgotten theatre. The Pacific and Europe get all the praise but the CBI contributed a lot to the entire war effort against the Japanese. Much more than you believe.

The Spitfire didn't just use early warning, it was a more than capable interceptor with remarkable dogfighting abilities. The Spitfire didn't even arrive in the CBI until 1943, when it did arrive however it came as a shock to the IJAAF as it could dance around any Japanese plane at high speeds.

When it did arrive, the RAF had a more than capable fighter to handle the IJAAF. The ranges weren't a problem in the CBI, the engineers were excellent and built airfield after airfield. The airfield I mentioned 150 miles behind enemy lines lacked any early warning radar, yet the Spitfires managed to intercept incoming Japanese planes time and time again.

The Seafire was also a capable carrier defence aircraft. More than enough to intercept the Fw-200 "Kondor" spotting the convoys for the German U-Boats.

Don't dismiss the CBI just because the U.S had little part in it. The Spitfires and Hurricanes provided invaluble service to the largest British Army of the war, the "Forgotten 14th".

Range was important in the Pacific but the plane had to be able to handle itself against the opposition. The Zero might have out-ranged the USN fighters in the Pacific but the USN fighters were superior. The F4F Wildcat was able to overcome the Zero with simple tactics.

The Zero was a long-ranged paper airplane.
 
The bulk of Japanese resources went to the SW and Central Pacific. What ever happened in the CBI was meaningless. It was called the forgotten theater for a reason.... it had no strategic value. Even if the allies had abandoned the whole area, nothing about the war would be different. The amount of material and personel the Japanese commited to the SW Pacific showed they knew what was more important.

In 1943, the only shock the Japnese pilots had was not over a few Spitfires in Burma (whose short range meant they were incapable of offensive operations) but of US and ANZAC Lightnings, Corsairs, P40's and Hellcats that were escorting heavy bombers at long ranges (for 1943) throughout the SW Pacific.

Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.
 

Attachments

  • zero_on_taxi_817.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 443
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Warbirds Over Pearl Harbor
Replies
6
Views
936
Tkdog
T
The Sunderland - aka 'The Flying Porcupine'... where were the extra guns?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
8K
WATU
W
W
Short Sunderland Mk IV WW2 1944/5
Replies
3
Views
1K
nortoi
N
J
WWII goggles that also worked as sunglasses?
Replies
6
Views
4K
airminded88
W
Effects of Ernst Udet not rising in the Luftwaffe?
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
wiking85
W
Menu
Log in
Register