Rising Sun warbirds

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


If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this.

I agree the Ki-84 was the best for Japan.
 

Lets see... 4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F

I think THOUSANDS of shotdown Japanese pilots may disagree with you. ;)
 
4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
- Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
- Irrelevant cause the F4U wasnt in combat untill summer 1943
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F
- Irrelevant cause the F6F wasnt in combat untill early 1943

"If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this. "
Every AF has attrition rates. The Japanese were even worse than the Germans in a pilot training program, and eventually as the pilots were shot down or incapacitated from the tropical diseases, they lost most of their experienced pilots. If you read my posts, I said for the first year of the airwar, the Zero was a great fighter.

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.
 
You obviously do not have a clue about the CBI, syscom. You have provided perfect evidence of that. The CBI had all the strategic value for the Japanese, the CBI was exactly where the Japanese resources were coming from.

They had captured Singapore, Burma, Malaya and Indonesia to secure vital oil, coal and rubber for their war effort. The shock came to the Japanese in the form of the Spitfire over Burma. The Spitfire was perfectly capable of offensive operations over the CBI because the distances were not too great, the Japanese and British forces were face to face all the time.

It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence.

Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me.

The Zero was a paper airplane with only two decent characteristics, long range and low-speed turning. It wasn't capable in a fight, the USN developed simple tactics to defeat it with the Wildcat.

If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were.

The reason the CBI was forgotten was because the ETO and MTO had all the news as it was closer to British home. The reason the CBI is forgotten now is because people like you do not care to read up about it.

I have the benefit of hindsight over those pilots that were being attacked by an aircraft shrouded in mystery. If I could go back and tell all those people what the Zero was really like, they would agree it was a paper airplane.
 
"Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me."
- the more you speak, the more ignorant you show me you are.

The riches of Indonesia and Mayasia were located a thousand miles south of Burma. If the IJA thought the CBI theater as important, they would have commited more units there and KEPT them there

No matter how much spin you put on it, the CBI was strategically irrelevent. Just like the Aleutians..... just Like Italy (after the Normandy landings).

"It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence."
- Of course you know that the IJN had resposibility for Rabaul and the IJA responsibility for northern New Guinie? It was IJA air units that were stripped from CBI to reinforce the more important theaters. And of course you know the japanese were still attacking allied bases throughout the SW Pacific well into the spring of 1943. I guess thats an active defense?

And of course, I suppose all of the P39/P41/Wildcat pilots who somehow ended up under the 'chute or in a crater on the ground (or splash in the ocean) were shot down by an inferior fighter.

"If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were."
- All the Japanese had to do was fly around for several minutes and then your vaunted Spits would need to land to refuel, heheheheheh.
 

The Spits would have ended up the same as the Spits in northern Ozland did, scrap metal. That is is if they could get off the ground due to the very numerous mech problems. Did you conviently forget the first battles between Spit Vs and Zeke?
 

And why was that? Becuase throughout 1942 the Zero was starting to get it's butt kicked. You just want to make a case for the Zero based on 1 year of fighting. That's nonsence! Even with 1942 kill ratios, the Zero was getting smoked and it was becuase of those early losses the situation only got worse........
 
I've got a reply to this but it won't let me post it! This is beyond odd, seriously I've got this massive reply and I'm not allowed to post it. It says it cannot detect the website. Even if I cut the reply down to a paragraph of it, it won't let me! And if you don't believe me I could even start a new threat with the exact reply. And it was all written by me too!

In fact, I'll PM someone it and they can try and post it. Who wants to be the test subject?

It won't even let me start a new thread with it. Man, this is f*cking wrong. How the hell can it do that!? I can write all this but not all what's in my reply. Conspiracy!

Holy shit! I can't even PM it to people. Someone PM me their e-mail so I can send it to you via e-mail, then try and post it on here.
 
If the IJA thought the CBI as unimportant they would not have bothered at all. China and Burma were both important areas of conflict. In fact, more Japanese units were stationed in China than against the U.S. Burma was vital for the Japanese to cut off the supply route into China and create a shield from the British in India.

Had the Japanese abandoned Burma, China would be supplied by the U.S lend-lease, the British could have attacked all Japanese gains in the South-West Pacific from the land. On top of that, Burma has it's own oil reserves or did you forget that?

Obviously you do not know what "active defence" means. "Active defence" refers to a defence created by offence. The attack on Pearl Harbour was "active defence" in Japanese eyes as they saw the threat from the U.S.
The assault on Imphal by the IJA was part of their active defence. It was to destroy the British offensive capability in India/Burma. So, yes, the Japanese assaults throughout late 1942/1943 were in active defence.

The Japanese knew they needed to keep Burma that is why there was such dogged resistance from the Japanese units in Burma. If it had been so unimportant, it would have been abandoned. You just don't have a clue about the CBI, do you?

The Zeke's could have flown around in circles constantly losing speed while the Spitfires intercept the bombers and shoot them down. The idea of an interceptor is to rise to the offence of the enemy, the Zero would come on the offence and the Spitfire would rise to meet it.

The first Spitfires met the Japanese over India/Burma in 1943, they achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF and IJN. It didn't take long for the RAF to know how to utilise their superior characteristics (which was basically everything) against the slothe paper Zero.

Yeah! It worked!
 
There was a Japanese aircraft... I believe it was called the ki 87 or ki100, that could outfight the p-51h and the (sob!) p-47N. I happened to fly It in cfs 2, and it is a dofighter's dream. It WOULD NOT STALL!!! It acellerated like a champ, and could out-turn and outclimb almost anything.
 

The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?

As far as them not stalling, that's impossible! Any aircraft with conventional control systems (no fly-by-wire) will stall, regardless of weight, airspeed and altitude.....

Henri Mignet's popular Flying Flea sports airplane was supposed to be stall proof. Folks bought the kit, flew it and tried to stall it, eventually they were successful - eventually they also died!
 
Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The KI-87 and the KI-100 were excellent aircraft and were probably par with the P-51. The P-47N, well I don't know?
Click to expand...

Only 1 Ki-87 was built. The Ki-87 was to use a turbocharged engine(Nakajima Ha-217).

 
syscom3 said:
Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".
Click to expand...

Agree for the most part but there are still many "shortfalls" inherent in flight sims, especially to the non-pilot who, unless properly trained,won't recognize them....
 
Japanese aircraft were well designed and well engineered. They were reliable and had decent armament. Their weakness was a lack of regard for pilot safety, a tenant of the Samurai.

With mostly non-sealing fuel tanks, they were vulnerable to weak hits, even fro 30-cal MG. With no regard for pilot safety, they had no armor plate for protection.

As a result, they were VERY maneuverable at slow to medium speeds, a bit tricky above 400 mph, and were not designed for long life. Also, the Japanese flew mostly on 87-Octane fuel, which resists supercharging at high altitudes with great skill.

I see the Japanese aircraft of WWII as the best that could be done at the time with what was available to the Japanese at the time.

If you dont think that, try to make a better fighter than the Zero in 1943 with no raw material and no production lines. At the time, the Zero was fantastic, and was not expected to be eclipsed. Imagine their surprise when the Hellcat, P-38, and Mustang came along ... not to mention the F4U Corsair. They msu have thought they were being punished by the Gods.

Designs don't stand still in wartime. If either the Bf-109 or the Spitfire had stood still, they would also have been eclipsed. They didn't. The Japanese must have been running a government wothout a knowledgeable aircraft advocate in power. Otherwise, the Zero would have been replaced or improved to meet the challenge.

By 1945, the quality of the steel was so poor that landing gear legs on the Shinden-Kai were regularly fracturing on landing. So, I'd say the Japanese aircraft effort was laudable in the effort, but not particularly well done due to lack of resources.

The Zero, even the A6M3, was simply not all that competitive in 1945 unless you wanted to slow down and fight at their game. At that, it was unbeatable.
 
syscom3 said:
Flight sim's have been shown to be very accurate.

Many of them match perfectly to the documented flight charachteristics. Only less than perfect modeling with them, is the cannon and MG "destructiveness".
Click to expand...

Some aircraft yes, but not all aircraft. The Japanese aircraft mentioned that could not be stalled, a good example. Obviously if there were a lot of the aircraft made and people who flew them still around, the accuracy will be better.

But if you do not fly, or have not flown small aircraft or even in small aircraft with someone else flying, you don't know what the feel of the aircraft is. That is one severely lacking part of sims. Good example, fly in a twin engine aircraft with the engines not running the same RPM, you can hear and feel the difference that a sim cannot give you. But it is something that you cannot miss if you are inside the airplane.
 
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
1K
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