Rising Sun warbirds

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I just think that if the Jap planes were so superior then why dont the kills show that.

 

[wmaxt]

I think that we are all slightly biased and I think that we should be fairer with our opinions. The zero desrved its fame because it did cause a lot of trouble for allied forces and must have been quite good to get a reputation like that. If planes like the mustang and thunderbolt were used in the pacific then maybe a more realistic story of how good the zero was would of appeared.

P-47s (522) out numbered P-38s (315) and 100 P-51s were also in service Jan '44.

By May '44 there were 502 P-38s, 1.42 P-47s and 200 P-51s.

By Jan '45 on there were up to 1,500 P-51s and P-47s and P-38s rose to 1,142.

From Jan '43 to Sep '44 there was a relitively constant 500 P-40s

The AAF only averaged 1,100 fighters against Japan in '43 and 2,100 in '44.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And the Wildcats and Hellcats were doing just fine against the Zeros themselves.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And the Wildcats and Hellcats were doing just fine against the Zeros themselves.

Yep!

 

[carpenoctem1689]

A decent pilot, flying a zero, of the A6M5 series, or even the A6M2 could cope with the average american pilot in a wildcat or hellcat. it was the attrition, and numbers disadvantage that cursed the zero. Not to mention the P-38 and the F4U. Theyre speed and superb ruggedness made them almost invulnerable to the zeke.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

you make it seems as though the zero was a substandard mount. in my personal opinion, it was a fine aircraft, even though it lacked the armor, self-sealing tanks, and high speed and alititude performance of its contemporaries both axies and allied. The armament was limited yes, but for a decent pilot, it was enough for single engined aircraft.....Like i said before, the curse of the zeke was the F4U and the P-38, along with americas industrial might....As well as the zero reaching its modified maximum around 1943, when the japanese should have had a new airframe to replace it. But the case was much the same for the Bf-109. Everyone, or more appropriatly most people here think japanese aircraft were junk, and thats a real shame.

 

[syscom3]

For the first several months of the war, the Zero was a deadly foe. The Japanese never improved on it, or fielded soon enough, a fighter to counter the F6F/P38/F4U. As a result, by the end of 1942, it was at a decided disadvantage.

In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

The zero was improved as its designation number, A6M2, A6M5, and later variations came out. A faster firing 20mm wing cannon was incorporated, and a slightly more powerful engine was introduced, some had clipped wingtips, and even a few were tested with 30mm cannon as intereceptors...to say they werent improved upon is untrue, but a replacement was needed.

 

[NAVAIR]

In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.

Most P-40s in the PI were knocked out on the ground. Those that got airborne gave a good account of themselves. Darwin was a evolving story. Once the 49th Fighter Group arrived, the Japanese began getting punished.

During the invasion of Burma, there were no Zeros as this was strictly a JAAF operation. They largely flew Ki-27s with some Ki-43s coming in to units. Brewster Buffalos were the primary fighter used by the Brits. Bolstering the Brits was the 3rd Squadron of the AVG, flying their Tomahawks. Indeed, the AVG inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese in exchange for minimal losses.

Most of the fighters in the SWPA were P-40s and P-39s. They more than held their own until P-38s (mostly the F and G models initially) began arriving, at which point the Japanese began losing aircraft at a rapid rate. Two of the 49th's squadrons flew the P-40 until August of 1944. They maintained a 6:1 kill to loss ratio in the Curtiss, despite it being generally obsolete by 1943.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[evangilder]

Having seen the Zero and the Hellcat and Wildcat side by side, flying together and undergoing maintenance in the msueum where I volunteer, I can say that I have a pretty good idea of what these planes are all capable of. I have also spoken with the gents that fly these airplanes regularly at air shows. The Zero was far from invincible and against the aircraft from the Grumman Iron Works, no match.

The mythic invincibility of the zero was just that, a myth. Yes, an inattentive pilot could get into trouble with the Zero, but an inattentive pilot could get into trouble with ANY aircraft.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

You make it sound as if a wildcat pilot had nothing to fear from a zero. Is that why they had to develop special tactics to deal with the A6M? Is that why american pilots would shit theyre pants when flying against a trained enemy in one of these aircraft? I think, maybe, just maybe, someone might be a little biased.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Lets go over this shall we, some obvious things to start off..

F4F: the wildcat, was slower, not much, but slower than the zero, less manouverable, yet could dive and roll better. It carried six heavy machine guns, and was much more rugged, but could not climb to meet the zero.

A6M: The zeke was faster, had two 20mm cannon, and two machine guns, could out climb and out run the wildcat, as well as out turn it easily, on speeds below 275mph. It had no armor, but it was many times more manouverable.

You can argue either way, but dont say the zero was crap...it could be a very good aircraft, with a decent pilot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For the first several months of the war, the Zero was a deadly foe. The Japanese never improved on it, or fielded soon enough, a fighter to counter the F6F/P38/F4U. As a result, by the end of 1942, it was at a decided disadvantage.

In early 1942, the Zero and Zeke both handled P40's over the Philipines, Java and Darwin with no problem. I dont think it was any different with the RAF over Burma.

SHOW STATS MY FRIEND! The actual numbers add up - the Zero was a paper tiger!!! Look at numbers and sources posted by some of the folks here who I would consider real experts in the PTO (Rich and Naviar has come up with some good stuff). I was amazed by this too but the numbers don't reinvent history, they invalidate a myth.....

 

[plan_D]

On several occasions over Burma the Ki-27 got hammered from the RAF and AVG. The RAF in Burma suffered more due to lack of spares and the terrible weather than to enemy action.

On the Zero;

The Zero suffered heavily at the hands of anyone once they knew the ability of the Zero, which was not much. The Zero achieved success the secondary theatres.

The British even turned down a prototype in 1937 which had the same dimensions and practical ability as the Zero because they stated it was already obselete. The said aircraft was the Gloster F.5/34.

 

[syscom3]

Are you saying that in the first 6 months of the war, all of those P40's sent to the PI, to Java, to New Guinie, just sort of all dissapeared on their own? They never saw battle, they just took off one day, never to return? And of course the Japanese couldnt shoot them down cause our planes were indestuctable, and the pilots were better! And of course the people on the ground were imagining things when they saw allied planes flying straight down into the ground. Engine failures no doubt.

Hmmmm. Maybe some UFO got in their way?

Lots of allied planes (P40 included) went up to fight the Japanese, decided to dogfight the Zero/Zeke/Oscar and plenty ended up shot down. Takes awhile for lessons of aerial combat to sink into a doctrine. Once those lessons were learned then loss rates went down in a hurry.

Note - too bad the tactics that Chenault learned in China were not taken seriously by the AAF untill it was obvious he knew what he was talking about. Untill that time, the slow learners ended up dead.

Im getting some figures for you. Perhaps you were unaware that plenty of P40's were not destroyed at Clark Field. Perhaps you were unaware that the AAF was sending P40's to Java, staging through Darwin and they were sent right into the thick of things.

 

[plan_D]

You're claiming the Zero as a capable aircraft technically, using the Western ignorance and arrogance as evidence. The Zero was not a capable machine technically, it was shrouded in myth and defended by the opposition ignorance.

The Western pilots were inferior to the Japanese in most cases. Due to the simple fact that the Japanese had combat experience over China. But that does not mean the Japanese aircraft were technically superior.

For Burma, at the initial invasion the offensive was carried on the shoulders of those on the ground. Not the flyers in the air. The British retreated which gave the IJAAF good chance to attack retreating columns. As well as having a breathing space while the RAF moved backwards. On top of that, the RAF was often grounded by lack of spares.

However, between January 23rd and 29th the IJAAF attempted to gain complete air superiority over Rangoon. During which seventeen Japanese planes were shot down and ten badly damaged for a loss of two AVG P-40s and ten RAF Buffalos.

From the book Burma - The Forgotten War by Jon Latimer:

"Between 23 and 29 January the Japanese made a determined effort to establish air superiority and there was much fighting over Rangoon, during which 17 Japanese planes were shot down and 10 badly damaged for the loss of 2 AVG and 10 RAF machines, forcing the Japanese temporarily to concede."

It continues:

"Chennault was insisting on withdrawal from Rangoon by 25 January unless he received reassurances on replacement aircraft, which were eventually forthcoming. British fighter strength was down to practically nil when three squadrons of Hurricanes flew in from Egypt (fitted with long-range tanks and having made nine three-hour hops from Iraq to Rangoon led by a Blenheim as navigator). But the planes were obsolescent Mark Is, and spares shortages meant that never more than 30 were available, a number that steadily dwindled."

Read for yourself, the IJAAF didn't have an easy time in Burma. They had to concede a few times during their invasion against inferior planes without updated tactics.

The RAF suffered greatly from a lack of spares which meant they could never send up more than thirty aircraft between three squadrons! The odds are the Japanese would have always had a numercial advantage in air combat over Burma.

Not only did the Japanese aircraft lack technical ability but the Japanese had a lack of tactical ability too. They rarely used cloud cover, they would bomb runways more than lines of communication, they acted as individuals, they didn't use air-to-ground control on blind landings, ultimately...they lost!

The Zero had three defining features, long range, climb rate and slow-speed turning rate. If it's opponent kept above 300MPH the Zero would not stand a chance!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are you saying that in the first 6 months of the war, all of those P40's sent to the PI, to Java, to New Guinie, just sort of all dissapeared on their own?

And Curtiss built 4,000 P-40s before Dec 7?!?!? How many P-40s you think were there? Find the numbers, they will surprise you!

Lots of allied planes (P40 included) went up to fight the Japanese, decided to dogfight the Zero/Zeke/Oscar and plenty ended up shot down. Takes awhile for lessons of aerial combat to sink into a doctrine. Once those lessons were learned then loss rates went down in a hurry.

And you're definition of 'LOTS'?!?! Your in for a rude awakening when you find out how many aircraft were there.

Im getting some figures for you. Perhaps you were unaware that plenty of P40's were not destroyed at Clark Field. Perhaps you were unaware that the AAF was sending P40's to Java, staging through Darwin and they were sent right into the thick of things.

WOW - PLENTY! If I was working in an aircraft factor before the start of WW2, I'd be in Buffalo - cranking out all those P-40s!!!!!

How many USAAF P-40s do you think were deployed in the South Pacific in 1942 (excluding the AVG) and how many do you think were lost?!?!?

Here, I'll throw you a bone, got this from another site....

Dr. Frank J. Olynyk: "USAAF (Pacific Theater) Credits For The Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-To-Air Combat World War II" P-38 unk: 1085/177/110 P-38-5: 001/000/000 P-38E: 002/000/000 P-38F: 088/027/026 P-38G: 115/029/015 P-38H: 290/050/027 P-38J: 060/007/011 P-38L: 058/003/007 P-39: 242/056/012 P-40: 706/087/030 P-47: 697/053/034 P-51 unk: 030/002/000 P-51D: 248/037/110 P-61: 065/006/004

The overall AAF totals in the Pacific are 3960 air kills and 925 air losses - do you think 900 of those were P-40s and they all happened in 1942-43?

I believe the columns are Destroyed, damaged, lost-

And I think the biggest point you're missing is most of the early combat around Java and New Guneia was against the IJA - they flew Oscars, commonly mistaken for Zeros, throw that into the mix.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets go over this shall we, some obvious things to start off..

F4F: the wildcat, was slower, not much, but slower than the zero, less manouverable, yet could dive and roll better. It carried six heavy machine guns, and was much more rugged, but could not climb to meet the zero.

A6M: The zeke was faster, had two 20mm cannon, and two machine guns, could out climb and out run the wildcat, as well as out turn it easily, on speeds below 275mph. It had no armor, but it was many times more manouverable.

You can argue either way, but dont say the zero was crap...it could be a very good aircraft, with a decent pilot.

Yeah you may be right about the stats but please dont be one of those people that thinks whatever is written on paper is the bible. If the Zero was so much better than the Wildcat, why did the Wildcat shoot down more Zeros than vise versa. Actually if you go an dlook at just about all the great Carrier Battles of the Pacific the Zeros were slaughtered by Hellcats and Wildcats and then when the Corsair came around it just got worse for the Zero. I don think the Zero was a terrible plane I just think it was overated and it was a myth.

Basically what I am saying is give up the whole this is what is said on paper about statistics for an aircraft because time and time again it gets disproven here on this forum.

Paper is not everything.

 

[plan_D]

The Zero was only more agile than the Wildcat below 275 MPH. In any case, one on one the Wildcat at best is going to fight for his survival. Quite easily done at altitude as the Wildcat would just dive away and the Zero wouldn't be able to follow.

However, with two Wildcats and four Zero the Wildcat's would be able to win if handled properly. They just have more potential for tactical alteration. The only thing the Zero can do is hope it's opponent is foolish enough to become low and slow.

 

[evangilder]

You make it sound as if a wildcat pilot had nothing to fear from a zero. Is that why they had to develop special tactics to deal with the A6M? Is that why american pilots would s**t theyre pants when flying against a trained enemy in one of these aircraft? I think, maybe, just maybe, someone might be a little biased.

I never said the Wildcat pilot had nothing to fear. What I did say is that the Wildcat was a much more survivable airplane than the Zero. Do you have any documented sources of American pilots that "shit" themselves when facing off against a Zero. How would they know that the pilot of the Zero was a well trained or seasoned pilot? Theye didn't carry kill markings on their aircraft.

Biased, no. I have seen all of these aircraft fly and I have seen them in various states of disassembly. I have also had the privilege of sitting in each of them. Spend a couple of hours in a maintenance hangar and compare the outer skin thickness and the frame structure of the aircraft and you will leave with little doubt that the more rugged of these is NOT the Zero.

As stated before, below 275, the Zero could out-turn most aircraft. It was light and had good range, that I will give you. But once in your sights, a quick burst of .50 caliber ammo into the wing is all it takes. The fire will do the rest. The wing cord on the Zero is very thick, making it not a fast diver. Above about 275 MPH, the ailerons become like concrete (I specifically asked the pilot of our Zero about high speed performance).

The numbers tell a big story in combat against the Zero. Again, the invincibility myth was a myth. Nothing more.