What does your 1941-1942 carrier plane force look like?

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

Magister said:
As has already been pointed out, tactics were what gave Wildcat pilots an edge over their Zero flown opponents. If proper counter tactics had been employed by Zeke pilots, they would have waxed the Wildcats.

The only things the Japanese could of done was develop the same "energy management" tactics used by the USN and incorporated better teamwork. There's no real "counter tactics" for fighting in the vertical, coordinating attack and overall teamwork. At that point its the machine, teamwork and the skill of the pilot.

Magister said:
I say the Zero (exclusive of tactics employed) was the best carrier fighter of the time.

As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph....

If you look at what the Zero actually did, it was highly over-rated....

syscom3 · Jan 29, 2006

rebel8303 said:
I think that the Japanese planes were quite good but the japanese pilots did not have proper training

At the start of the war, the IJN airmen were among the best trained around. Many had combat experience in China, and the IJN was known to conduct training along "wartime conditions".

Unfortunatly for Japan, the system that produced and trained them couldnt expand fast enough to provide replacements and expand the pool. It also was quite rigid when it came to developing new tactics.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

syscom3 said:
It also was quite rigid when it came to developing new tactics.

Very Very true! The IJN and JAAF held on to an outdated dogfighting doctrine...

102first_hussars · Jan 29, 2006

At the start of the war, the IJN airmen were among the best trained around. Many had combat experience in China, and the IJN was known to conduct training along "wartime conditions".

Very true, alot of their dogfighting experience also came from the Russo-Japanese war as well.

Jank · Jan 29, 2006

"As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph.... "

Both the Zero and Widcat were relatively slow so that would,'t be too difficult.

Also, I thougt that the Japanes pilots didn't operate together as a team very well as opposed to the Americans.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

As long as they kept their fight under 300 mph.... "

Both the Zero and Wildcat were relatively slow so that would,'t be too difficult.[/quote]
No - the Wildcat had a top speed of about 325 mph. When you're fighting in the vertical and unloading the airplane "over the top" the aircraft will dive a lot quicker. It's here where the Zero's limitations are exploited. All of its control surfaces "loaded up" and became like concrete.

Jank said:
Also, I thougt that the Japanes pilots didn't operate together as a team very well as opposed to the Americans.

Although they fought bravely, they sometimes did things haphazardly....

plan_D · Jan 29, 2006

They didn't use cloud cover effectively. They didn't use much air-ground communication on blind landings. And they concentrated on runways, rather than lines of communication and stores when attacking airfields. There's some more flaws with the IJN and IJAAF aerial tactics, and practices.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

plan_D said:
They didn't use cloud cover effectively. They didn't use much air-ground communication on blind landings. And they concentrated on runways, rather than lines of communication and stores when attacking airfields. There's some more flaws with the IJN and IJAAF aerial tactics, and practices.

Yep and many of them flew with no parachutes....

syscom3 · Jan 29, 2006

I cant remember what aviation historian it was that said the "Japanese fighter pilots behaved more like 16th century samurai than 20th century proffesionals". I know some German military attache's were continually telling the Japanese officers to change their tactics to reflect on what was proven in Europe in 1940 and 1941. Fortunalty for the allies, that advice was unheeded.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

Very True

plan_D · Jan 29, 2006

Certainly the Allied forces would have lost many more men, but even with German tactics the Japanese airmen were in no situation to combat the Allied greats. I, personally, think the advantages of the Allied aircraft in combat were better than those of the Japanese. How could a Zero, honestly, hope to achieve success against a Corsair if the F4U pilot had a slight knowledge of his plane? He can't.

Keep the combat fast, and the Japanese could not win.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

plan_D said:
Keep the combat fast, and the Japanese could not win.

And the USAAF and the USN learned that within 6 months of the war.

Again the mystical Zero could never do better than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over F4Fs, P-39s and P-40s. Highly over-rated!!!!

syscom3 · Jan 29, 2006

The corsair was for 1943, not 1942.

Later model Japanese fighters when flown by the surviving veterans were more than capable of holding their own against the F6F, F4U, P51 and P38.

Good for the allies that they were the rarely encountered

plan_D · Jan 29, 2006

Hardly capable, and I know the Corsair was 1943. I was making a statement about the Japanese throughout the war. The Japanese fighters were not capable planes all the Allied aircraft were just too fast for it. It was luck, rather than skill, that achieved kills for the Japanese against Allied fighters in the later years.

syscom3 · Jan 29, 2006

Plenty of allied pilots were shot down thinking that the Japanese fighter they were going to "smoke" turned out to be piloted by a competent pilot.

Dont under estimate them. A competent pilot of any nationality flying a decent fighter is a dangerous foe.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 29, 2006

syscom3 said:
Plenty of allied pilots were shot down thinking that the Japanese fighter they were going to "smoke" turned out to be piloted by a competent pilot.

Dont under estimate them. A competent pilot of any nationality flying a decent fighter is a dangerous foe.

Agree, but at the end of the day the numbers said it all! I think that was more the exception than the rule!!

syscom3 · Jan 30, 2006

Just pointing out that when the Japanese had a good pilot in a good airplane, they were just as good as anyone.

It is a fallacy to think otherwise. They built good planes towards the end of the war, and suffered primarily from a complete lack of experienced pilots.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 30, 2006

syscom3 said:
Just pointing out that when the Japanese had a good pilot in a good airplane, they were just as good as anyone.

Agree, but usually they had one without the other - my point was that although they managed to inflict losses, for the most part most pilots did not underestimate them.

syscom3 said:
It is a fallacy to think otherwise. They built good planes towards the end of the war, and suffered primarily from a complete lack of experienced pilots.

Agree...

rebel8303 · Jan 30, 2006

I say Seafire (apart from landings)

loomaluftwaffe · Feb 3, 2006

the Jap's pearl harbor veterans like died.
And the replacements had engine troubles with the MK9 Mamoru and NK9 (army designation Ha-45) Homare.
if those engines were reliable, then the zero would have been phased out earlier

What does your 1941-1942 carrier plane force look like?

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Lieutenant Colonel

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads