michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I verry much agree. I think many(including myself here)often focus to much on early war Japanese types when thinking of what allied planes were up against against when it comes to Japanese aircraft in relation to German types.Regarding post 445, Flyboyj said that the Allies in the ETO faced better enemy aircraft. Not too sure about that one.
They certainly faced enemy aircraft that had potentially higher top speed, but Japanese fighters were pretty darned good in their best-maneuvering range. Early on, they also had some seasoned combat veterans as leaders. By the time late-war was upon them, the aircraft were very good, even if not quite as fast as the German aircraft, but a large percentage of their seasoned combat veterans had been lost.
The Ki-84, Ki-44, Ki-100, J2M, and N1K series of aircraft were all excellent ... in the hands of a good pilot, with decent speed, if not exactly fast, and decent armament.
Not a strong disagreement here with Flyboyj because circumstances above consipred to make the late-war Japanese fighter force less effective overall than the Luftwaffe was when they were late-war, but teh aircraft themselves wewre pretty good when properly employed.
It would be an interesting "what if" to have swapped some good aircraft between Germany and Japan to see what developed in the way of tactics and results but, of course, it never happened.
No they didn't, how many aircraft in the Luftwaffe inventory could take off and land from a carrier. How many single engine fighters had the range and performance of a Zero in the LW 1941/42? Is your opinion based on facts or eye shape?Resp:
Agree that German aircraft held an edge in overall performance over Japanese aircraft, but that an outstanding pilot often made a less than ideal fighter into a viable opponent.
jeez, that seems unnecessaryIs your opinion based on facts or eye shape?
I think if a Ki-84 or N1K2 had proper fuel and maintenance, they would have matched anything in the sky.
Resp:I think you are giving a bit to much credit to the Homare engine.
There are reasons the Wright R-1820 went from about 1200lbs when it made 930-1000hp on 91/96 octane fuel to weighing 1470lbs when it made 1525hp on 115/145 fuel. Part of it was the beefing up required to run at 2800rpm instead of 2200rpm and part of it was the beefing up required to go from BMEP of 184 to a BMEP of 237. The Homare was already running at high rpm and it weighed less than a Wright R-2600 that made 1900hp, Getting hundreds more HP out of the Homare without either cooking it (overheating) or breaking it doesn't seem likely.
Air-cooled engines were much more limited in their ability to be over boosted than liquid cooled engines.
Better fuel may have helped the Ki-84 and N1K2 (especially over the front line fuel vs test fuel) but P-47Ns, P-51Hs and F4U-4s were becoming the order of the day in the Summer of 1945.
Resp:No they didn't, how many aircraft in the Luftwaffe inventory could take off and land from a carrier. How many single engine fighters had the range and performance of a Zero in the LW 1941/42? Is your opinion based on facts or eye shape?
Resp:The Japanese shot down plenty of P-38 in the Pacific mostly due to some P-38 pilots been overconfident, in the Battle of the Bismark sea off New Guinea three "ace" P-38's were shot down when their flight leader decided to jump into the middle of a big dogfight at lowish level over a convoy.
The Ki-84 was not that maneouverable, but damn fast <20,000ft, the Japanese tested a P-51C captured in China and the test pilot says manoeuverability is the same as Ki-84, interestingly he said the Fw190A out accelerates both ( the Japanese had a test Fw190A-5).
The Japanese shot down plenty of P-38 in the Pacific mostly due to some P-38 pilots been overconfident, in the Battle of the Bismark sea off New Guinea three "ace" P-38's were shot down when their flight leader decided to jump into the middle of a big dogfight at lowish level over a convoy.
Germany did need aircraft carriers it just didn't have the industrial capacity to build and man them. Their navy did quite well in the early years choking off the route from North America not the USA there is another country called Canada which you may have heard of, or maybe not, they would not have done so well if the US Navy had not been led by people who were anti British and did actually know what they were doing.Resp:
Germany didn't need any aircraft carriers to dominate Europe, so your statement is moot. Their Navy did just fine in choking off allied support from the US to England for many years.
It is true that the A6 Zero had tremendous range for a single engine fighter. Chennault in 1940/early 1941 sent a full report to both the RAF in England and the USAAF in the US. I can't speak for the British but the USAAF higher ups never took Chennalt's report on the Zero seriously, so it was not shared/disseminated. Maybe allied manufacturers would have incorporated greater range sooner.
Well someone should point out that this guys opinion is not based in any way on facts but on the USA being the top dog and every other nation below, he spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that the USA was responsible for the Spitfires performance, no real mention of the UKs role in the P-51s performance. The only protagonist in WW2 he respects is Germany apart from the USA of course, you draw your conclusions and I draw mine. I spent years working with the Japanese in Japan and elsewhere, I recognise the anti Japanese sentiment in the posts, as I do the USA flag waving.jeez, that seems unnecessary
Resp:Well someone should point out that this guys opinion is not based in any way on facts but on the USA being the top dog and every other nation below, he spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that the USA was responsible for the Spitfires performance, no real mention of the UKs role in the P-51s performance. The only protagonist in WW2 he respects is Germany apart from the USA of course, you draw your conclusions and I draw mine. I spent years working with the Japanese in Japan and elsewhere, I recognise the anti Japanese sentiment in the posts, as I do the USA flag waving.
You reference basically one battle, you name no names, .....
the P-38's dive made it very tough for the Americans as wellI don't deny the P-38's speed and dive made it very tough for Japanese planes....
I don't deny the P-38's speed and dive made it very tough for Japanese planes....
Not for the 25 PTO aces who had 10 or more victories - 7 of them had 20 or more!!the P-38's dive made it very tough for the Americans as well
Resp:The P-38 was the mount of our (U.S.A.) top two Aces. It cannot have been all that bad.
All fighters have weaknesses, and the P-38 had a couple. But the pilot who can exploit the strengths of his mount and the weaknesses of the enemy planes at the same time will always do well. At least, Bong and McGuire did.
Of course, the Japanese also had their Aces, and they did quite well.
I had the privledge to hear Saburo Sakai speak once back in the 1980s in Arizona, at Falcon Field at the old Doug Chamlpin Fighter Museum. He admitted the Zero was long in the tooth during the last part of the war, but said that many U.S. pilots didn't seem to know that or ignored it and tried to fight him in the Zero's strongest flight envelope area. They mostly didn't fare too well. Between 180 and 280 mph, the A6M was the best fighter airplane in the world ever to take wing.
If I am not mistaken, Eric Brown said nearly the same thing in his books, too.
Cheers.