Axis A/C in Europe were a lot more advanced than the axis A/C in Asia and the Pacific.
Wasn't the STUKA the best dive bomber to see service in WWII
- Thread starter Jank
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Axis A/C in Europe were a lot more advanced than the axis A/C in Asia and the Pacific.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Wheres your Facts?
The Me109 E-4 had cockpit armour, the E-7 self sealing fuel tanks. Even one to two years later no such thing was installed in any japanese fighter making a pair of cal.30 machine guns effective self defence weapons.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
Wrong. Your thinking mostly of the Zero. The Ki-84 had all of what your looking for. So, you need to learn your facts before you go all out claiming something.
Wikipedia
I know the risk of quoting Wikipedia, but all the other websites I went to also confirmed this.
Ki-84 Hayate Nakajima
Not wrong,
the Me109 E-4 was introduced in late 1939, the E-7 right before the BoB. By the time Japan went to war -two years after WW broke out in Europe and showed armour and fuel tank protection were a must- the A6M and Ki-43 were her "best" fighters and neither had a single pound of protection.
The Ki-84 was introcuded in 1944(!). At that time it was too late: the elite pilots were dead and the Allies had already introduced their own high performance fighters. edit: and SBD wasn´t the USN´s standard dive bomber any more.
the Me109 E-4 was introduced in late 1939, the E-7 right before the BoB. By the time Japan went to war -two years after WW broke out in Europe and showed armour and fuel tank protection were a must- the A6M and Ki-43 were her "best" fighters and neither had a single pound of protection.
The Ki-84 was introcuded in 1944(!). At that time it was too late: the elite pilots were dead and the Allies had already introduced their own high performance fighters. edit: and SBD wasn´t the USN´s standard dive bomber any more.
Last edited:
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
I my friend, stand corrected. I miss read that about the Ki-84. It is a 1944 plane. My apologies. Maybe I need to take my own advice and learn some facts huh
buffnut453
Captain
I my friend, stand corrected. I miss read that about the Ki-84. It is a 1944 plane. My apologies. Maybe I need to take my own advice and learn some facts huh
Hey, Beau, takes a big man to admit mistakes! Not that I ever make mistakes!!
parsifal
Colonel
I would not disagree that aircraft in the Pacifc were technologically less advanced than aircraft in Europe, And yet yet this whole argument seems wrong somehow. Compared to an Me 109 the A6M held a number of different characteristics that are worth noting:
1) It had much greater range and endurance.
2) It was far more manouverable in the horizontal plane
3) It was a very fast climber
4) It was a machine designed for carrier operation.
My understanding is that the Me 109 was not fully armoured until around the time of the Battle Of Britain. As a generalization, one could say armouring in the Luftwaffe began to take effect in Septmeber 1940. Drop tanks were introduced some time after that, I dont know exactly when, lets assume December 1940.
For the Japanese drop tanks began to be adopted early in 1941. They disdained the use of armour prior to hostilities, though the technology was known to them. Given the operational requirements of the pacific....the vast didtances to be covered, this was the correct decision. Armouring began to be fitted from early to mid 1942, in the Tojo and the Ki-61. The Oscar started to receive some armouring from the Ki-43 III and the A6m received some protection from the A6m5 (allbeit at an inadequate rate)
In terms of strike aircraft, and particulalry aeronaval capability, the Japanese held a distinct advanatage over the germans. It is is not widely known, but the germans did not have effective torpedo bombers until some time in the latter part of 1941. They had to borrow aerial torpedoes from the Italians after having witnessed the successes of the italian armed torpedo bombers. The Japanese had been equipping torpedo bombers for land based units since at least 1936, and more to the point, training their aircrews to use them for many years.
There was one piece of technology that the Japanese held a lead in aircraft fabrication....they were the first country to develop a product called super duralumin, which made possible the zero because it enabled a super lightweight airframe and skin to be adopted, as I understand it
1) It had much greater range and endurance.
2) It was far more manouverable in the horizontal plane
3) It was a very fast climber
4) It was a machine designed for carrier operation.
My understanding is that the Me 109 was not fully armoured until around the time of the Battle Of Britain. As a generalization, one could say armouring in the Luftwaffe began to take effect in Septmeber 1940. Drop tanks were introduced some time after that, I dont know exactly when, lets assume December 1940.
For the Japanese drop tanks began to be adopted early in 1941. They disdained the use of armour prior to hostilities, though the technology was known to them. Given the operational requirements of the pacific....the vast didtances to be covered, this was the correct decision. Armouring began to be fitted from early to mid 1942, in the Tojo and the Ki-61. The Oscar started to receive some armouring from the Ki-43 III and the A6m received some protection from the A6m5 (allbeit at an inadequate rate)
In terms of strike aircraft, and particulalry aeronaval capability, the Japanese held a distinct advanatage over the germans. It is is not widely known, but the germans did not have effective torpedo bombers until some time in the latter part of 1941. They had to borrow aerial torpedoes from the Italians after having witnessed the successes of the italian armed torpedo bombers. The Japanese had been equipping torpedo bombers for land based units since at least 1936, and more to the point, training their aircrews to use them for many years.
There was one piece of technology that the Japanese held a lead in aircraft fabrication....they were the first country to develop a product called super duralumin, which made possible the zero because it enabled a super lightweight airframe and skin to be adopted, as I understand it
buffnut453
Captain
Valid points, Parsifal. In many respects, I believe the primary difference between Japan and the Western Powers was as much cultural as it was technical. To make an analogy, Western Powers preferred aircraft that were akin to the armoured knight with a battleaxe while Japanese pilots wanted their aircraft to be Ninjas - lightly armoured, fast, and agile. This analogy applies to comparisons of Western and Japanese aircraft, tanks and tactics. As weapons systems, both models work in certain circumstances - the key is ensuring you shape the battlespace to neutralise the adversaries advantages and maximise your own. The Japanese military was obsessed with the "samurai spirit", believing that superior will and agility would overcome the lumbering western forces. Initially, they were right but ultimately they could not maintain the balance of power.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The A6M and almost everything else were slow climbers compared to the Me-109 series.
Good post Parsifal. Covers a lot of good stuff.
Also would add the Japanese had a different philosophy than the western powers. Their aircraft were strictly offensive, with no built in defensive components. I guess they figured they'd always be giving and not getting, left the defense to the pilots reactions. They learned after dealing with Western fighters to incorporate armor and self sealing gas tanks (as well as an inert gas system) into their aircraft.
One other point. The Japanese design team that produced the Zero were hampered by a design spec that was pretty rigorous. The orginal A6M had a 950 horse engine in 1940, about 200+ horses lower than comparable 109 and Spitfires. Yet they still got performance that would equal (if not surpass) most of the aircraft in the RAF and Luftwaffe.
It was an amazing aircraft for it's time.
Also would add the Japanese had a different philosophy than the western powers. Their aircraft were strictly offensive, with no built in defensive components. I guess they figured they'd always be giving and not getting, left the defense to the pilots reactions. They learned after dealing with Western fighters to incorporate armor and self sealing gas tanks (as well as an inert gas system) into their aircraft.
One other point. The Japanese design team that produced the Zero were hampered by a design spec that was pretty rigorous. The orginal A6M had a 950 horse engine in 1940, about 200+ horses lower than comparable 109 and Spitfires. Yet they still got performance that would equal (if not surpass) most of the aircraft in the RAF and Luftwaffe.
It was an amazing aircraft for it's time.
Saw in Wiki that they have the 109G with a climb rate of 3700ft per minute. Pretty impressive.
Have about the same number for the P39.
Huh?
P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, but it was brittle. This and the overall flimsyness of the design lead to wing spars cracking and even breaking at high speeds. This and the huge ailerons limited the often praised manouverability to rather low speeds of 200 to 250 mph.
It was a flying coffin. The seemingly supreme performance came at the expense of survivability. These flimsy flying gas tanks could not survive the most minor damage. This was not important in a low intensitiv air war against a third rate air force like the Chinese but once the Japanese crossed swords with capable pilots in modern planes they were doomed.
edit: The armament was far less impressive than it seemed too. Two rifle calibre machine guns are as good as useless against a plane with armour and protected fuel tanks and the 20mm cannons had a muzzle velocity that was so low even good shots like the Japanese had a hard time scoring a hit. And each gun had just 60 rounds.
To loosely quote a guy from another froum: The Japanese found out their ability to shoot down the TBDs was directly proportional to the amount of 20mm ammo.
Last edited:
Seems correct to me. An early P-39 had a climb rate of 2,500 ft/min, late version were well above 3,000 ft/min but only until the plane reached 12,000 feet.
I also agree with Parsifal's points mainly, but what does Bf109E v Zero really have to do with 'advanced a/c' when comparing Ju-87 and SBD, or divebombers generally?
If the point is that SBD with twin .30's had better success firing back at Japanese fighters than Ju-87 with (somewhat faster firing) double ~.30, that's not borne out by facts. SBD rear gunners very seldom actually downed Zeoes*, often claimed, seldom achieved. If anything, Ju-87's rear gunners scored more often against Hurricanes and Spits hitting them in the cooling system, and while seldom totally destroying the attacking plane or killing the pilot, forced them to break off and perhaps crashland. Of course as far as deterring the attacking pilot with stream of tracers, Japanese pilots were again if anything less susceptible to that than Western pilots generally speaking.
If we're going to get off topic on 109 v Zero though, almost everyone who is interested in the European air war and less familiar with Pacific is surprised to learn the Spitfire V had a terrible record v the Zero, even in 1943. After some argument about how the record actually wasn't so bad, or Japanese losses not known or understated (both clearly wrong), it usually goes to explanation/excuse by a series of incorrect assumptions (outnumbered: wrong, no radar warning system: wrong, etc) and then usually finally comes to rest on 'wrong tactics' but what's to say German pilots would have done so much better. The Spitfire was sometimes not so successful v 109 either (it has a mythic rep from old Brit propaganda that's not always in line with the unvarnished facts), but often it was reasonably competitive, v very poor showing against the Zero.
Nobody really knows what result of 109 v Zero combats would have been; of course if the combat required the 109 to fly more than maybe 100 miles from base it just wouldn't have been there! or very briefly make a pass and go home. Even over Malta ~100 miles from bases 109's couldn't stick around long fighting Spitfires and had periodic losses to fuel exhaustion. Zeroes defeated Spitfires near Darwin after flying 500+ miles from Timor, with no operational losses to fuel (unless you want to count some of the handful of disappeared Zeroes rather than assume they were downed by Spits, and make that kill ratio even more lopsided) over a whole series of missions.
So nobody knows Bf109 v Zero because it didn't happen and actual combats often contain surprises, but blanket statement of 'more advanced' about 109 v contemporary Zero models, in terms of who would have been more effective, real pilots and all, is quite questionable IMO. It's at the very least a speculation not based on any real facts. We see all the time in WWII fighter combat that comparing a few stats like speed and climb is not a good predictor of outcomes unless the differences are really big; again Spits would beat Zeroes based on such an analysis, but in real life it didn't turn out that way.
*most people know SBD gunners almost downed the Japanese ace Saburo Sakai, his survival was near miraculous, but it's also one of very few times in 1942 that a Zero was downed or nearly so by an SBD rear gunner.
Joe
If the point is that SBD with twin .30's had better success firing back at Japanese fighters than Ju-87 with (somewhat faster firing) double ~.30, that's not borne out by facts. SBD rear gunners very seldom actually downed Zeoes*, often claimed, seldom achieved. If anything, Ju-87's rear gunners scored more often against Hurricanes and Spits hitting them in the cooling system, and while seldom totally destroying the attacking plane or killing the pilot, forced them to break off and perhaps crashland. Of course as far as deterring the attacking pilot with stream of tracers, Japanese pilots were again if anything less susceptible to that than Western pilots generally speaking.
If we're going to get off topic on 109 v Zero though, almost everyone who is interested in the European air war and less familiar with Pacific is surprised to learn the Spitfire V had a terrible record v the Zero, even in 1943. After some argument about how the record actually wasn't so bad, or Japanese losses not known or understated (both clearly wrong), it usually goes to explanation/excuse by a series of incorrect assumptions (outnumbered: wrong, no radar warning system: wrong, etc) and then usually finally comes to rest on 'wrong tactics' but what's to say German pilots would have done so much better. The Spitfire was sometimes not so successful v 109 either (it has a mythic rep from old Brit propaganda that's not always in line with the unvarnished facts), but often it was reasonably competitive, v very poor showing against the Zero.
Nobody really knows what result of 109 v Zero combats would have been; of course if the combat required the 109 to fly more than maybe 100 miles from base it just wouldn't have been there!
or very briefly make a pass and go home. Even over Malta ~100 miles from bases 109's couldn't stick around long fighting Spitfires and had periodic losses to fuel exhaustion. Zeroes defeated Spitfires near Darwin after flying 500+ miles from Timor, with no operational losses to fuel (unless you want to count some of the handful of disappeared Zeroes rather than assume they were downed by Spits, and make that kill ratio even more lopsided) over a whole series of missions.So nobody knows Bf109 v Zero because it didn't happen and actual combats often contain surprises, but blanket statement of 'more advanced' about 109 v contemporary Zero models, in terms of who would have been more effective, real pilots and all, is quite questionable IMO. It's at the very least a speculation not based on any real facts. We see all the time in WWII fighter combat that comparing a few stats like speed and climb is not a good predictor of outcomes unless the differences are really big; again Spits would beat Zeroes based on such an analysis, but in real life it didn't turn out that way.
*most people know SBD gunners almost downed the Japanese ace Saburo Sakai, his survival was near miraculous, but it's also one of very few times in 1942 that a Zero was downed or nearly so by an SBD rear gunner.
Joe
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
So, back to dive bombers...I still like the Vengeance!!!
That mess was the result of using the wrong tactics. The Spitfire pilots were told not to get into a low speed dogfight with japanese fighters but to use boom and zoom tactics instead. They did not listen and thus got beaten, after that they applied the tried and proven anti-Zero tactics and won.
You're following exactly the standard script I mentioned in last post. Trying not to be wordy I just said part of the script was 'it wasn't actually so bad', as in 'after that they applied the tried and proved anti-Zero tactics and won'. No, they were never consistently successful. In the whole series of combats, stretching for several months, the Spits lost upwards of mid 20's a/c *in air combat NOT COUNTING THEIR HEAVY ADDITIONAL LOSSES TO MECHANICAL AND FUEL* while downing 4 Zeroes. 2 of those Zeroes were lost when stafing an airfield and jumped by Spitfires. Other than that there was no particular trend in the results over time.
So again, we can call it 'tactics', but 'tactics' that were apparently not so easy to change, and what's to say the Germans wouldn't have suffered similarly and their lack of success v Zeroes be attributed to 'tactics' by Luftwaffe fans? At some point the objective results matter, not just the subjective explanation of the results.
The Spits did inflict moderate losses on the Japanese bombers as well, but to compare, Spits inflicted at least as heavy losses on escorted Ju-88's over Malta and did much better v the (more relatively numerous) Bf109 escorts at the same time, though the 109's still had somewhat of a kill ratio advantage.
Joe
Strange! Much less advanced A/C like the F4F and the Curtiss Hawk did well against Zeros and Oskars in the PTO and BCI.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
