Rn vs IJN

[Shortround6]

Between the use of seaplane scouts at night, such as they did use at Savo island, using seaplanes for marking targets with flares, used perfectly by the IJN in that battle, star shells (used by both sides in the battle) and the oft ridiculed superior naval optics of the Japanese, combined with the clearly very good training and discipline, and torpedoes with vastly more speed and range, I am just not sure radar alone is going to tip the scales, in say 1942 or 1943.

The use of seaplane scouts by the Japanese was not unique to them. Just referencing the Hobart in 1939 she managed to recover her Walrus after it flipped in a night landing off of Sumatra. Either this plane or a replacement was used on June 17th to bomb an Italian radio station on Centre Peak Island in the Red Sea. By August 8th the Italians were attacking British Somalia and in return for a raid by 3 Italian aircraft " Howden sent Hobart's Walrus seaplane to attack the Italian airbase at Zeila with hopes of catching the enemy aircraft re-fuelling. Finding no better targets, the Walrus bombed what appeared to be a headquarters building then strafed the base, wrecking enemy vehicles and silencing two machine gun posts. The aircraft returned with two bullet holes; Hobart's first battle scars" Hobart also dismounted a 3pdr saluting gun and sent it into action with three volunteers as an impromptu AT gun.
The British and the Italians (and others) had been using star shells for years, I have provided pictures of special star shell guns on some ships.
Training/morale is a bit variable from ship to ship but there doesn't seem to much complaint about the RN morale.
You place a lot of stock in the Japanese torpedoes. I an not saying they weren't good but they are not smart cruise missiles. And they were rarely fired (or at least hit anything) much over 20,000yds. British had the 2nd best torpedoes during this part of the war so the difference is nowhere near as marked as the difference between the US and the Japanese. In the vast majority of the battles the Japanese would have been in range of the British torpedoes.

" overcome superior Japanese torpedoes, aircraft, and ships."

Japanese torpedoes don't make their own ships torpedo proof. At this stage of the war only the A6M is clearly superior for carrier aircraft. and the superior ships thing needs a lot of looking at.
At least British ships didn't roll over as easy in a storm.
There are a lot of things that go into a warship, the Japanese strongly emphasized some. In other areas they were rather deficient. Their destroyers were pretty much one trick ponies. They were the best in the world at that one trick. For any other trick they fell into the middle of pack.
The Asashio class (in service in 1939) is supposedly the first Japanese destroyer to have sonar. With a whopping 16 depth charges. Later increase to 36 BUT at the cost of getting rid of 4 of the torpedo reloads.
They had six 5in DP guns, except the rate of fire sucked, and the gun director did not have an AA mode. Surface fire only with the director. The Contemporary J & K classes were about 200 tons lighter (10%) Their six 4.7 in guns didn't aim as high but fired at least 20% faster. The J&K also had a quad 2pdr instead of two twin 25mms. They also had a pair of quad .5 mounts, J&Ks had ten 21in tubes instead of eight 24s. One set was often traded for a single 4in HA gun but that was bit dubious. They also had sonar and 45 depth charges.
Daylight gun fight was probably equal, at close range the higher British rate of fire may put it ahead but a lot sea fights had a lot of luck.
There is a lot of 'stuff' that is hidden away. The British guns had twice the barrel life. May or may not matter in one battle depending on worn the barrels are. Makes a difference keeping a ship in fighting shape over several years.
Rounds per gun may favor the British. Tribals carried 200 shells per gun which was pretty standard for the British destroyers, SAP, HE and star shell (at least 50 per ship to start) The Big L&Ms carried 250 shells per gun so it is doubtful that the J&K carried less than the Tribals. Japanese started with 150/180 (normal/war) in the Fubiki's but that was cut to 120/150 after Tomozuru capsized. Later destroyers may have had the ammo capacity restored.

We seem to have skipped right over submarines. The Japanese boats were big but had problems, more due to the size rather than build quality. They didn't dive quickly and they didn't turn quickly.

I would like to read about some examples of the RN using radar guided gunnery in that period or before.

Depends on what you mean by "radar guided gunnery" the fight with the Scharnhorst was the first British fight with blind firing.
However they had been using radar ranging for quite some time. This came in two forms. The first was for AA fire as it is harder to get optical range finders to give true range (slant) on aircraft. They then started using radar range finding for surface fire. Optical for train/bearing and the radar input for range.

 

[cherry blossom]

The Japanese may well have not shot well at long ranges.
Very few (any?) nations 8in guns shot well at long range. Long range is relative and long range for an 8in gun is actually medium range for battleship guns.
Unfortunately this was NOT recognized in the late 20s/early 30s when most of the 8in guns and ships were designed/built.
40 degree or so of elevation, tall masts with spotting positions at the top, floatplanes to correct fall of shot.....snip

The exception might be the Germans. For example, Prinz Eugen hit Hood once and Prince of Wales three times whilst Bismarck hit Hood at least twice and also hit Prince of Wales four times. Hipper scored at least 8 hits during the Battle of Barents Sea in fairly complete darkness at quite long ranges, with the longest a first salvo hit on re-engaging Achates at 17,700 metres followed by two further hits to sink the destroyer.
PS. High elevation did become useful in 1945 when shooting at Russian tanks!

 

[Shortround6]

longest a first salvo hit on re-engaging Achates at 17,700 metres followed by two further hits to sink the destroyer.

Maximum book range (37 degrees) for the German 8in gun was 33,500meters so that hit was at 53% of max range
Probably done at about 11 degrees of elevation. 13.3 degrees was good for 20,000 meters range.

That is still good shooting though.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The use of seaplane scouts by the Japanese was not unique to them. Just referencing the Hobart in 1939 she managed to recover her Walrus after it flipped in a night landing off of Sumatra. Either this plane or a replacement was used on June 17th to bomb an Italian radio station on Centre Peak Island in the Red Sea. By August 8th the Italians were attacking British Somalia and in return for a raid by 3 Italian aircraft " Howden sent Hobart's Walrus seaplane to attack the Italian airbase at Zeila with hopes of catching the enemy aircraft re-fuelling. Finding no better targets, the Walrus bombed what appeared to be a headquarters building then strafed the base, wrecking enemy vehicles and silencing two machine gun posts. The aircraft returned with two bullet holes; Hobart's first battle scars" Hobart also dismounted a 3pdr saluting gun and sent it into action with three volunteers as an impromptu AT gun.
The British and the Italians (and others) had been using star shells for years, I have provided pictures of special star shell guns on some ships.

Ok first of all, this is ALL bullshit, because I never said that the Japanese were the only ones that used seaplanes for scouting at night, or for spotting at night. I pointed out upthread in fact that the US did it too. It's just that when I pointed out that they did this, and it's certainly another way to spot enemy ships other than radar or via good binoculars, you insinuated that wasn't really done or wasn't that effective.

So I pointed out that it was clearly very effective at Savo island, to the dismay of Allied ship crews. And this was not the only case.

I will note, however, that the Japanese scout planes were a lot better (more seaworthy, faster, longer ranged, more capable in air combat) than the Walrus or most of the American planes. The E13 was an excellent long range seaplane scout which could also carry a fairly respectable bomb load, the E7K was an older biplane but quite serviceable with an 11 hour endurance, and the F1M was a fairly deadly little seaplane-fighter.

Training/morale is a bit variable from ship to ship but there doesn't seem to much complaint about the RN morale.

I'd say that morale, training and discipline appear to have been first rate in terms of world standards, generally speaking, for the IJN in 1942-43.

You place a lot of stock in the Japanese torpedoes. I an not saying they weren't good but they are not smart cruise missiles.

And I never said they were.

And they were rarely fired (or at least hit anything) much over 20,000yds. British had the 2nd best torpedoes during this part of the war

Are you sure about that? From what I remember when looking into this specific issue, the IJN was way at the top, but the Russian and Italian torpedoes looked pretty good too.

so the difference is nowhere near as marked as the difference between the US and the Japanese. In the vast majority of the battles the Japanese would have been in range of the British torpedoes.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. They certainly were not cruise missiles but they had both a longer maximum range and a longer effective range. I'd love to compare every wartime torpedo attack, both from ships and aircraft, and let's see what the actual ranges were. I think you are lowballing the range of the Japanese in general.

" overcome superior Japanese torpedoes, aircraft, and ships."

Japanese torpedoes don't make their own ships torpedo proof. At this stage of the war only the A6M is clearly superior for carrier aircraft.

Bullshit. The D3A was one of the three best dive bombers of WW2, with the Stuka and SBD. It may have been the best of the three in terms of bombing accuracy. Look at the number of hits they got against the Hermes.

and the superior ships thing needs a lot of looking at.
At least British ships didn't roll over as easy in a storm.
There are a lot of things that go into a warship, the Japanese strongly emphasized some. In other areas they were rather deficient. Their destroyers were pretty much one trick ponies. They were the best in the world at that one trick. For any other trick they fell into the middle of pack.
The Asashio class (in service in 1939) is supposedly the first Japanese destroyer to have sonar. With a whopping 16 depth charges. Later increase to 36 BUT at the cost of getting rid of 4 of the torpedo reloads.
They had six 5in DP guns, except the rate of fire sucked, and the gun director did not have an AA mode. Surface fire only with the director. The Contemporary J & K classes were about 200 tons lighter (10%) Their six 4.7 in guns didn't aim as high but fired at least 20% faster. The J&K also had a quad 2pdr instead of two twin 25mms. They also had a pair of quad .5 mounts, J&Ks had ten 21in tubes instead of eight 24s. One set was often traded for a single 4in HA gun but that was bit dubious. They also had sonar and 45 depth charges.
Daylight gun fight was probably equal, at close range the higher British rate of fire may put it ahead but a lot sea fights had a lot of luck.
There is a lot of 'stuff' that is hidden away. The British guns had twice the barrel life. May or may not matter in one battle depending on worn the barrels are. Makes a difference keeping a ship in fighting shape over several years.
Rounds per gun may favor the British. Tribals carried 200 shells per gun which was pretty standard for the British destroyers, SAP, HE and star shell (at least 50 per ship to start) The Big L&Ms carried 250 shells per gun so it is doubtful that the J&K carried less than the Tribals. Japanese started with 150/180 (normal/war) in the Fubiki's but that was cut to 120/150 after Tomozuru capsized. Later destroyers may have had the ammo capacity restored.

I've looked at it, I'd be glad to do a detailed comparison. It looks to me like the IJN ships are generally better armed in all classes, better in many respects except for the radar.

We seem to have skipped right over submarines. The Japanese boats were big but had problems, more due to the size rather than build quality. They didn't dive quickly and they didn't turn quickly.

Actually, no we didn't. We discussed submarines at length already.

Depends on what you mean by "radar guided gunnery" the fight with the Scharnhorst was the first British fight with blind firing.
However they had been using radar ranging for quite some time. This came in two forms. The first was for AA fire as it is harder to get optical range finders to give true range (slant) on aircraft. They then started using radar range finding for surface fire. Optical for train/bearing and the radar input for range.

I mean radar guided gunfire like the USN destroyers used at Samar.

 

[SaparotRob]

 

[EwenS]

We have a lot of speculation in the above posts, but the research has already been done and published. The late, well known maritime author Alan Raven, published a 320 page work back in 2019 titled "British Cruiser Warfare. The Lessons of the Early War, 1939-1941". The Introduction & Contents pages can be read on Amazon.uk. In the introduction, and after noting the huge number of actions in WW2, he makes the comment that "However, most of the significant lessons of the naval fighting were learnt early on, so confining this work to the 1939-41 period makes thematic sense". The first half of the book is a chronology of the events until Dec 1941.

The second half however has summaries of various aspects covering a wealth of topics, like the obvious ones of surface gunnery, shore bombardment, AA tactics, radar etc to the less often considered aspects of damage & damage control, repair facilities weather and the resulting damage therefrom, human conditions, code breaking of German and Italian codes (and the reverse) etc.

Surface gunnery
The author devotes about 10 pages to this subject, starting with an explanation of how the system actually worked, followed by a review of some of the 30 surface gunnery engagements (mostly against ships at sea), before finishing with the conclusions drawn by the Admiralty at the end of 1941 about surface gunnery performance. Some of the points noted are:-

1. Overall good results in close range night actions, "if allowance was made for the limited number of wartime exercises that had taken place". Hardly surprising given the tempo of operations.
2. "Day actions confirmed the long held belief that obtaining hits on retreating targets that were end-on or at a very fine inclination was very difficult". This problem was not confined to the RN. The author notes that the Germans experienced similar problems.
3. Fire control equipment had performed well, but rangefinders in 6" cruisers appeared inferior to French & Italian equipment.
4. During night actions a certain number of tracer shells were needed to aid target acquisition.
5. Generally pre-war spotting rules were deemed satisfactory except for targets at fine inclination.
6. Problems spotting AP fall of shot due to smaller splash
7. Optical rangefinders performed satisfactorily in average conditions but were somewhat ineffective if target was indistinct or the ship encountered heavy weather (increased ship movement)
8. In some actions salvos were noted as having arge spreads. Attributed to modern guns having a flatter trajectory and greater range (due to higher velocity) leading to increase in laying errors. Partly due to lack of practice.
9. 8", 6" and 5.25" turrets all performed well with only minor and easily fixable problems encountered. The author particularly notes that in all the action reports / narratives he found, none contained any critical comments on the 5.25" gun or mounts. The early problems noted in the Didos were attributable to weather damage distorting the deck structure forward, which was fixed by strengthening the hull and not to the turrets and guns themselves.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Cruiser-Warfare-Lessons-1939-1941/dp/1526747634/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2B47ZBARCKJEK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.97K7gkwdk50_OBjZkDZjA3uVEPjSDpD4L1rNvw65ga_AL7yRPcDuew-Ccj9Jn5dLASyWuNV1JpC4r1FcnStuUAdzsgjnFuU7DAqHYvJffz_GIn6DJ_3JbI7xMLK9prTQlj7emh8trksVX3QKbHRonCKGsM1m8LMHL0OM-Bu6uXvYkdo4fV-WkbBMYWAcJ4IbmsQDrIaALYrLbXWQBvn6E8XWTjwJbHv7ya_PYAANgSU.ycvbXQpMwhr6nkQSBorJPg6M2YMmW1f1nO2fH77sF_U&dib_tag=se&keywords=british+cruiser+warfare&qid=1707914088&sprefix=british+cruiser+warfare%2Caps%2C106&sr=8-1

Gunnery radars
The main gunnery set, Type 284, didn't go to sea until Dec 1940 with Type 285 for secondary directors beating it by a month. Early 284/285 sets had insufficient bearing accuracy for blind fire. But by 28 Sept 1941 only 16 cruisers and 7 capital ships had Type 284. At that date 56 ships had Type 285 but that included only 7 cruisers and 4 capital ships and a single carrier.


As for the use of gunnery radars, we have
1. Suffolk (with 279 & 284) used her 284 to track Bismarck by slewing the director across her bearing. But the director had to be powered down periodically to avoid burning out the motors. It was in one of those periods that she lost contact. Norfolk had a fixed aerial Type 286M, which only detected Bismark at 6 miles.
2. On 7 Sept 1941 Aurora & Nigeria took part in a high speed close range action in heavy weather off northern Norway. Nigeria used her AW Type 279 as a gunnery radar (she received Types 273 & 284 during repairs immediately after this action). Aurora did not use her Type 279 or 284 radars as it was felt that with so many targets in close proximity there would be difficulty discerning which one to shoot at. The cruisers sank the German minelayer Bremse in this action and damaged other ships.

Exeter was sent east at the end of May 1941 following her post River Plate rebuild and work up. Her only radar was the Type 279 AW set. Perth had been given a Type 286 air and surface warning set in early 1941 but had no gunnery radars when sunk.

Improvements to Types 284 & 285 began to emerge in 1942 and earlier sets were upgraded. By 1944 Type 284 in its latest version was not far short in performance from its centimetric replacement. The centimetric replacement for 284, Type 274, was first fitted in Howe on completion of her refit in April 1944 and the new cruiser Swiftsure in June. It was then gradually fitted in other ships as they came in for refit.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Well, you don't throw flammables overboard on 5-10 minutes. You can get guns pointed in the general direction you think trouble is coming from. It takes about 25 seconds to swing the 8in turrets 90 degrees and those 8in guns (or the Japanese) can fire 3-4 rounds per second. Get star shells for the 5in guns? Change speed/direction? make things difficult for the enemies torpedo/fire control?

I just have one account of the Hobart tracking the Japanese but they probably didn't know they were the Japanese until it was too late.
The Allies had 4 or 5 groups of ships in area that night not counting the two picket destroyers in the west. The two transport groups get short shrift but the eastern warship group had two groups of transports between them and the battle/s. The US failed both to pick up the Japanese on radar multiple times but either failed to notify command or misidentified radar targets.

Unfortunately this lack of situational awareness (figuring out who was where) was still going on in Dec 1942 and basic command decisions were still being screwed up at the of Battle of Tassafaronga.
Rear Admiral Carleton H. Wright apparently didn't know how to execute a torpedo attack and didn't know the capabilities (ranges) of the US torpedoes.
Having an Admiral decide when and where to open fire is one thing, denying permission for captains open fire while your bridge officers explain that yes, the US destroyers are easily within torpedo range is another thing entirely. Followed by announcing the Japanese that they are under attack within 1-2 minutes of the torpedo launch maybe evasive action is called for? ruining the torpedo attack. Now maybe the Japanese would have spotted the US without them opening fire and managed to take evasive action anyway.

US Admiral had at least 3 own goals.
1, not knowing his own weapons capabilities and delayed firing torps until the range was opening and bad angle.
2, opened gun fire too soon,
3. failed to order speed/course corrections to throw off Japanese torpedo attack. Forget the Long Lance stuff, just assume that if the enemy ships are well within your range you are within their range. Wright had just been told that the US torpedoes had a range of over twice the distance that the US Destroyer Captains wanted to fire at (and they fired a bit longer).
Just assume that even if the Japanese torpedoes are not as good as the US torpedoes they are good enough to work at the distance separating the two lines of ships. Japanese executed a turn away, and then did a 180 degee turn to reverse direction but that turn was in the direction (closer) to the US forces.

Thanks for the informed response, I pretty much agree with everything you've said here, my point or rather question (poorly framed as it was) is:

Would it have made a big difference if H.M.S. Australia with Crutchley commanding had been on scene? I mean, he was, I assume, an experienced officer, the RN had been at war for over 3 years at that point, that has to count for something.

On a side note, I looked over my post, I didn't see anything all that funny about it, maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Regarding the Japanese naval aircraft:

A5M - Superior to Sea Gladiator, probably superior to the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane, and to all FAA fighters up to the Seafire
A6M - vastly superior to all British made FAA fighters. Generally superior or equal to all land based fighters available as well. Best naval fighter in the world until the Hellcat.
D3A - vastly superior to all FAA strike aircraft, contender for the best dive bomber in the world along with Stuka and SBD
B5N - superior to Swordfish or Albacore in every respect except radar capability. Carries more effective torpedoes.
G3M - probably about equivalent to the Wellington in many respects, though it has a better record against warships. Carries more effective torpedoes.
G4M - clearly superior to all British naval strike aircraft until the torpedo armed Beaufighter. Carries more effective torpedoes.
E7K - Seaplane scout biplane. Long endurance.
E13 - Seaplane scout (launched from cruisers and BBs) with 230 mph top speed, 138 mph cruising speed, 1300 mile range, 14 hour endurance (twice the range of the Walrus). There were two night flying versions made and one with air to surface radar (I think later in the war)
A6M2-N - Seaplane fighter, launched from seaplane tenders or island bases. Superior to anything in the Allied arsenal in this niche, capable of fighting land-based fighters.
H6K - Long range flying boat, inferior to Sunderland
H8K - Long range flying boat, superior in some respects to Sunderland

Regarding the Japanese torpedoes:
Not just longer ranged, but also considerably faster

Regarding optics
Clearly much better than both RN and USN (only the Germans come close). You can downplay it all you want, optics are very important in naval warfare, which is why USN and RN replaced theirs with captured Japanese instruments at every opportunity, apparently. And kept using them into the 1980s.

Regarding gun accuracy
Based on the operational history, IJN shooting accuracy appears to have been good to excellent, after the Java sea, and seemed to be very competitive with the USN up until 1944

The IJN system by the way was to use colored dye initially, with different colors for each ship firing, so as to be distinguishable. This could obviously be more difficult at night and did not work well in bad weather / storms.

Regarding ship armament
IJN ships seem to have had bigger guns and more torpedoes, on average

As I said before, the advantage for the RN would in bad weather, which is not uncommon in the Pacific, and with submarines, which will require them to have and hold a suitable base or bases (possibly in the East Indies / Java area)

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Can you expand on why you would rate the A5M as "probably superior" to the Sea Hurricane?
I would agree that the A5M was probably superior to the Fulmar, as a pure fighter, but rating it higher than the Sea Hurricane seems a stretch

 

[Greg Boeser]

Can you expand on why you would rate the A5M as "probably superior" to the Sea Hurricane?
I would agree that the A5M was probably superior to the Fulmar, as a pure fighter, but rating it higher than the Sea Hurricane seems a stretch

Range? Agility? Certainly not speed, durability or firepower.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Can you expand on why you would rate the A5M as "probably superior" to the Sea Hurricane?
I would agree that the A5M was probably superior to the Fulmar, as a pure fighter, but rating it higher than the Sea Hurricane seems a stretch

I would not say it's definitive, but I'm basing that on the operational history of the A5M.

Looking at stats,

A5M was more agile, I believe it had a better roll, probably a better turn (wing loading 19.2 lbs / sq ft vs about 28 for a Hurricane IIC), had a bit better acceleration (0.19 hp / lb vs about 0.15) and it looks like it had a better climb rate. A5M also had better range which is particularly significant for carrier aircraft.

Sea Hurricane has a higher top speed of course, and a lot more firepower.

It would probably depend on tactics and preparation. If the Sea Hurricanes were at altitude before combat, and used hit and run tactics, they would probably prevail. If not (and depending on how long before 'hit and run' took was adapted) I think the Sea Hurricanes are going to be in trouble. Hurricane in general isn't very good for hit and run in part because of slow roll and slow dive acceleration.

They were mainly used in China where they did well against Russian types. A few A5M were used in Burma, and on New Guinea and some other Pacific islands. They managed to shoot down some SBDs in action against USN in the Pacific, and at least two RAAF Hudsons near New Guinea so they did have a 'sting' in spite of light armament.

There is a bit of combat history here (not much). I couldn't find anything about their combat history in Burma or if they encountered Hurricanes there.

MITSUBISHI A5M ‘CLAUDE’ · The Encyclopedia of Aircraft David C. Eyre

The Mitsubishi A5M Type 96 Carrier Fighter began its operational career in September 1937 when aircraft of the Imperial Navy engaged aircraft of the Chinese Nationalist Government over the capital, Nanking.

aeropedia.com.au

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Range? Agility? Certainly not speed, durability or firepower.

By that metric is the A6M then "probably superior" to the F6F?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Army Ki-27, which saw a lot more action, had a lot of similarities both in size and weight, did pretty well against Buffalos and Hurricanes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

By that metric is the A6M then "probably superior" to the F6F?

If you read the Ki-43 thread, it seems to have done very well against many faster types, including and especially the Hurricane. But also early (Allison engined) P-51s, P-39s, P-38s, P-47s, and Spitfire MkVs.

The A6M obviously did as well.

F6F was exceptional. It wasn't the fastest fighter in the Pacific but it had a number of traits which made it very good in the fighter role, on top of high training standards for the pilots.

One of the things I've learned about WW2 air combat is that

 

[RCAFson]

Regarding the Japanese naval aircraft:

A5M - Superior to Sea Gladiator, probably superior to the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane, and to all FAA fighters up to the Seafire
A6M - vastly superior to all British made FAA fighters. Generally superior or equal to all land based fighters available as well. Best naval fighter in the world until the Hellcat.
D3A - vastly superior to all FAA strike aircraft, contender for the best dive bomber in the world along with Stuka and SBD
B5N - superior to Swordfish or Albacore in every respect except radar capability. Carries more effective torpedoes.
G3M - probably about equivalent to the Wellington in many respects, though it has a better record against warships. Carries more effective torpedoes.
G4M - clearly superior to all British naval strike aircraft until the torpedo armed Beaufighter. Carries more effective torpedoes.
E7K - Seaplane scout biplane. Long endurance.
E13 - Seaplane scout (launched from cruisers and BBs) with 230 mph top speed, 138 mph cruising speed, 1300 mile range, 14 hour endurance (twice the range of the Walrus). There were two night flying versions made and one with air to surface radar (I think later in the war)
A6M2-N - Seaplane fighter, launched from seaplane tenders or island bases. Superior to anything in the Allied arsenal in this niche, capable of fighting land-based fighters.
H6K - Long range flying boat, inferior to Sunderland
H8K - Long range flying boat, superior in some respects to Sunderland

Regarding the Japanese torpedoes:
Not just longer ranged, but also considerably faster

Regarding optics
Clearly much better than both RN and USN (only the Germans come close). You can downplay it all you want, optics are very important in naval warfare, which is why USN and RN replaced theirs with captured Japanese instruments at every opportunity, apparently. And kept using them into the 1980s.

Regarding gun accuracy
Based on the operational history, IJN shooting accuracy appears to have been good to excellent, after the Java sea, and seemed to be very competitive with the USN up until 1944

The IJN system by the way was to use colored dye initially, with different colors for each ship firing, so as to be distinguishable. This could obviously be more difficult at night and did not work well in bad weather / storms.

Regarding ship armament
IJN ships seem to have had bigger guns and more torpedoes, on average

As I said before, the advantage for the RN would in bad weather, which is not uncommon in the Pacific, and with submarines, which will require them to have and hold a suitable base or bases (possibly in the East Indies / Java area)

The A5M has two .303mgs with a low ROF vs 4 BMGs on the Gladiator or Skua or 8 or the Fulmar. The A5M isn't superior.

The A6M was excellent but it had it's issues, which is why so many IJN carriers went to the bottom when protected by A6Ms.

The D3A is arguably inferior to the Skua (no folding wings) and wouldn't have been adopted by any ETO air force; no armour, no SS tanks and 550lb bomb load? The D3A seemed OK because it scored it's biggest successes against undefended (no CAP) targets, where they had overwhelming numbers.

The G3M/G4M worked well as naval strike aircraft when no defending fighters were present; when they were present the G4M got slaughtered.

Again, IJN torpedoes were vastly superior to USN torpedoes, but so were RN torpedoes.

IJN Optics were good but really no better than Allied optics (no IJ optical coatings for example), the IJN however had a superior night combat doctrine to the USN and it was that night combat doctrine that was the real advantage, of course the RN had a similar night combat doctrine. German optics, with optical coatings were superior to IJN optics as were coated Allied optics.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The A5M has two .303mgs with a low ROF vs 4 BMGs on the Gladiator or Skua or 8 or the Fulmar. The A5M isn't superior.

A5M was clearly vastly superior to a Skua, Gladiator, or Fulmar. But some people will clearly never admit that. You make the point beautifully. There is more to a fighter than firepower - see the Bf 109F or the Ki-43 for that.

The A6M was excellent but it had it's issues, which is why so many IJN carriers went to the bottom when protected by A6Ms.

I think that's a bit simplistic...

The D3A is arguably inferior to the Skua (no folding wings) and wouldn't have been adopted by any ETO air force; no armour, no SS tanks and 550lb bomb load? The D3A seemed OK because it scored it's biggest successes against undefended (no CAP) targets, where they had overwhelming numbers.

This is amusing, if delusional. D3A proved very capable in combat, not just in sinking ships (which it did far, far more capably than a Skua) but also in sustained combat over land, in New Guinea and the Solomons.

The G3M/G4M worked well as naval strike aircraft when no defending fighters were present; when they were present the G4M got slaughtered.

Compared to what? Blenheims? Swordfish?

Again, IJN torpedoes were vastly superior to USN torpedoes, but so were RN torpedoes.

True, but IJN torpedoes were also vastly superior to RN torpedoes

IJN Optics were good but really no better than Allied optics (no IJ optical coatings for example), the IJN however had a superior night combat doctrine to the USN and it was that night combat doctrine that was the real advantage, of course the RN had a similar night combat doctrine. German optics, with optical coatings were superior to IJN optics as were coated Allied optics.

Apparently there was more to it than "IJ optical coatings". If the IJN optics were inferior or just as good as the RN, then RN would probably not have adopted the Japanese ones - into the 1980s!. And I would think they would have sought out German optics if they were vastly superior.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would not say it's definitive, but I'm basing that on the operational history of the A5M.

Looking at stats,

A5M was more agile, I believe it had a better roll, probably a better turn (wing loading 19.2 lbs / sq ft vs about 28 for a Hurricane IIC), had a bit better acceleration (0.19 hp / lb vs about 0.15) and it looks like it had a better climb rate. A5M also had better range which is particularly significant for carrier aircraft.

Sea Hurricane has a higher top speed of course, and a lot more firepower.

It would probably depend on tactics and preparation. If the Sea Hurricanes were at altitude before combat, and used hit and run tactics, they would probably prevail. If not (and depending on how long before 'hit and run' took was adapted) I think the Sea Hurricanes are going to be in trouble. Hurricane in general isn't very good for hit and run in part because of slow roll and slow dive acceleration.

Then at that point, it's more apt to write that Japanese tactics were superior, rather than their A5M.

 

[Greg Boeser]

By December, 1941, the A5M was a second line aircraft. All first line units were equipped with A6M2s. A few saw action in the Phillipines, Marshall Islands, Rabaul, and Coral Sea. But by mid-'42 they were nowhere near combat.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Then at that point, it's more apt to write that jaanese tactics were superior, rather than their A5M.

I guess that's kind of a chicken-egg thing. But I lean toward aircraft capabilities and pilot training, rather than tactics being the advantage for the Japanese.

All things being equal, the extremely maneuverable Japanese fighters - A5M, Ki-27, Ki-43, A6M, tended to usually defeat almost every Allied aircraft type they encountered through 1942 or even later, unless the latter adapted special tactics.

It was the Allies who had to change tactics, to adapt to the relative strengths of their own aircraft to the weaknesses of the Japanese types, once those were learned. Even once the 'hit and run' tactic was developed, it did not turn out to be effective for all units, nor did all aircraft types adapt to it. The USN used Thach Weave instead. Some P-38 pilots (Bong and McGuire) developed a different type of hit and run tactic, with a shallow high speed climb.

But without adjusting what you might call the default tactics, it was the Allied fighters that tended to get shot down. The IJN specifically actually used Boom and Zoom themselves, albeit with certain specific unique variations like the Hineri-komi. On the other hand, the Japanese were slow to adapt finger-four, and they were still flying in flights of three well into the mid-war in some areas.

I would say in general it was not so much their tactics which gave them an advantage, as their aircraft. The Allied tactics worked with some planes more than others, and generally moved them toward parity, or in a few cases a bit above parity. Eventually the US got better fighters - Hellcats, later model P-38s, Merlin P-51s, Spitfire VIII, which proved to be better than the Japanese types.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess that's kind of a chicken-egg thing. But I lean toward aircraft capabilities and pilot training, rather than tactics being the advantage for the Japanese.

All things being equal, the extremely maneuverable Japanese fighters - A5M, Ki-27, Ki-43, A6M, tended to usually defeat almost every Allied aircraft type they encountered through 1942 or even later, unless the latter adapted special tactics.

It was the Allies who had to change tactics, to adapt to the relative strengths of their own aircraft to the weaknesses of the Japanese types, once those were learned. Even once the 'hit and run' tactic was developed, it did not turn out to be effective for all units, nor did all aircraft types adapt to it. The USN used Thach Weave instead. Some P-38 pilots (Bong and McGuire) developed a different type of hit and run tactic, with a shallow high speed climb.

But without adjusting what you might call the default tactics, it was the Allied fighters that tended to get shot down. The IJN specifically actually used Boom and Zoom themselves, albeit with certain specific unique variations like the Hineri-komi. On the other hand, the Japanese were slow to adapt finger-four, and they were still flying in flights of three well into the mid-war in some areas.

I would say in general it was not so much their tactics which gave them an advantage, as their aircraft. The Allied tactics worked with some planes more than others, and generally moved them toward parity, or in a few cases a bit above parity. Eventually the US got better fighters - Hellcats, later model P-38s, Merlin P-51s, Spitfire VIII, which proved to be better than the Japanese types.

And all that is another way of writing that the difference was with the personnel and not the A5M's alleged superiority, which is the only contention I take issue with right now. All planes have strong and weak points. The wise pilot fights to his plane's strengths while masking its weaknesses. That is not a quality of the airframe, that is using the qualities of the airframe.