why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily (2 Viewers)

[Steamed_Banana]

I would like to know how reliable those Japanese loss records are. If I remember correctly, these losses and claims were documented by a Japanese historian, and I know that when people discuss exchange ratios in specific Pacific air battles, they sometimes tend to focus on one particular IJNAF unit while neglecting other IJNAF and IJAAF units that may have been involved in nearby regions.

For example, in the air battles involving the 343rd Kokutai over Matsuyama and Kikai-jima, other IJNAF and IJAAF fighter units were also involved. This was one reason that U.S. fighter claims in those battles could appear to be overclaims, because the historian recorded only the losses of the 343rd Kokutai. This is understandable, since many IJNAF and IJAAF units destroyed their records, making it difficult to confirm the actual losses.

I wonder whether something similar happened in that book documenting the losses of both sides in the air battles over the Solomons.

I do think Claringbould has a bit of a Japanese bias, and I would certainly like to see someone double check the records he was using. Hopefully we'll get a few more series like his and Shores work for the Pacific. However, these roughly even exchange rates seem to hold true across multiple regions (Burma / China / New Guinea / Solomons / Aleutians) and over a pretty long period of time from mid 1942- late 1943. In early 1942 the Japanese were ahead in the exchange rate in most cases. They also show up in both Shores as well as Claringbould's work.

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Quite interesting how much more agile Japanese fighters are compared to US and allies one.
Ki-43 II wing loading is 121 kg/m2
Ki-84 wing loading is 171 kg/m2
So it understandable that Ki-84 is a worse turner compared to Ki-43. However it is still decently better than most Allies fighters
F6F wing loading is 183 kg/m2
P-51D wing loading is 192 kg/m2
P-51H wing loading is 197 kg/m2
Spitfire mark 24 wing loading is 200 kg/m2
P-47M wing loading is 265 kg/m2
Spiteful wing loading is 231 kg/m2

Wing loading does not reflect turning ability, or else all of them would turn the same both ways and they don't.

In "A consideration of Ki-84 performance", an Army document only partly translated to this day, the near-sustained (but allowing slight altitude loss, so not sustained) left 360 of the Ki-84 was 17 seconds, right was 20 seconds, an enormous difference. These are tested values.

Probably 20 seconds left and 23 seconds right full sustained speed/altitude, which is hardly any better than the P-51 if the US pilot knows enough to down-throttle 30-40% under WEP and use 20 degrees of flaps.

Erich Brunotte mentions never using more than 0.9 ATA to 1.2 ATA during combat on a 190D-9, capable of 1.7 to 1.9 ATA (so half power basically): Power was death to turning radius, and radius was everything.

Ki-43-II in its 1944 translated pilot manual, likely not fully altitude or speed sustained, 11 seconds both ways.

Probably 13 seconds fully sustained.

The Ki-100 out-turned everything except the Ki-43. In Japanese tests against the Ki-84, one Ki-100 could defeat up to three Ki-84s, switch pilots around, and do it again.

Spitfire IX: Symmetrical. Sharp initial turn, but gentle elevator use is required or it will mush like the P-47.
Supposedly 18 seconds un-sustained both ways but far worse if sustained: I estimate 21-22 seconds fully sustained (V was better) and only at speeds above 250 mph, with a radius hardly ever under 1000 feet: Both Germans were in the 900 feet range below 250 mph. Sustained was no better than P-51 and worse than Me-109G to left, or the fw-190A both ways. Clostermann calls the Spitfire turn excellent at high speed but "a good joke" as speed goes down under 200 knots indicated (so roughly 240-250 mph TAS).


P-51B was 21 seconds not full sustained left, more like 23 right. The P-51D the same if it cut power and used 20 degrees of flaps. In all cases cutting power may have shaved a second or two, which is why the weaker needle tip P-47 rates so highly in turns:

P-47D Razorback with needle tip prop: Very mushy initially, but capable of a few 20 seconds left circles even at full power, but because of that weak prop only... If using the paddle-blade you need to cut throttle. That is why, despite the initial mush, in Europe all the Razorback P-47 does is make circles... I read 900 8th af P-47 Encounter Reports TWICE, and in Europe diving and then zooming literally NEVER happens: You cannot shoot if you have enough excess speed to zoom...

The P-47D Razorback was very asymmetric, and very mushy if you pulled hard, but once the turn was engaged, a left turn would keep it behind (or gain on) a Me-109G for at least 3-4 turns. Most Me-109G pilots did not know they needed to down-throttle to turn better: They started to get it by mid-late 1944. Karhila (32 kills on 109G-6) describes it as such: "When the enemy throttled down, I throttled down even more."

It was a contest of throttle reduction. As the period saying went: "Dogfighting was a race where the slowest won."

If you don't understand that, sorry but you don't understand WWII dogfighting.


The Merlin P-51 preferred left turns below 200 mph (but was very crisp and tight turning at high speed, especially to the right, like the Me-109). The 190A, Ki-43 and Spitfire were all pretty symmetrical, but the 190A had absolutely terrible hard right turns at high speeds, and generally the worst high speed handling of WWII: It crushed you nose-up while going almost straight, or dropped a wing, and it could crush you nose-up for thousands of feet while still going down in a dive recovery: It would then "pancake" with the nose still up... Some US pilot said that if the 190 did not begin to pull-out by 8000 feet, he was pancaking, the behaviour was that extreme... Russian data: A 190A's 1400 feet dive a 40 degrees requires an additional 660 feet of vertical space after a nose-level position is reached during the pull-out...

I don't quite understand this part, why do you need to fire from point bank at 50 meters?, can't you just spray from 300 m and make repeated pass?, not like Ki-43 can follow these Mustang

Because the trajectory is mismatched and your hit rate is 2%. Diving on an opponent you are trajectory mismatched, and you want to fire late because any movement by the target will destroy your one second window to nail him at point-blank range. Point-blank is the only time you are not at a 2% hit rate...

How come? what make Ki-100 so special

"Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on nothing but the Ki-100)

Textual quote : P. 76:

"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.

During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno (Akeno flight school) pilots left little to the imagination.

In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 (585 km/h) would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h) in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.

The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school (separate series of tests) were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso, both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiased opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagement and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.

In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84, with the Ki-100 winning outright.

Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage, the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise."

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."

[NOTE: Because of a short landing gear the Ki-84 prop was too short, this being baked into the design permanently, and its prop could not deliver the full climb and speed performance of its power level. Its climb was very similar to a 190A-8 at 1.58 ATA, despite the Ki-84's much better power to weight ratio. The climb data placing it as similar to the 190A-8 is from "A consideration of Ki-84 performance": Original Japanese source, with a time to altitude test of a late 4 X 20 mm variant with the best late wartime engine.]

Against the P-51: "Aeroplane" p.77: "I learned how to take my fighter out of the firing line of the P-51 when being chased. I might never be able to shoot it down, but I was sure I would never be downed!"

P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."

 

[mig-31bm]

Wing loading does not reflect turning ability, or else all of them would turn the same both ways and they don't.

I do understand that generally turning is affected not only by wing area but also lift coefficient. But generally speaking, a significant reduction in wing loading tend to show that an aircraft turn better.
WW II fighters can't turn at the same rate both way likely due to the effect of their propeller?

It was a contest of throttle reduction. As the period saying went: "Dogfighting was a race where the slowest won."
If you don't understand that, sorry but you don't understand WWII dogfighting.

But if that were the case, how come late war super props such as XP-72, Spiteful, P-51H, F4U-5 ..etc seem to put such great emphasized on top speed rather than turn rate?.
USN fighter such as F6F, F4U didn't turn better than A6M series either

In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 (585 km/h) would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h) in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.

The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school (separate series of tests) were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso, both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiased opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagement and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.

In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84, with the Ki-100 winning outright.

Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage, the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise."

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."

[NOTE: Because of a short landing gear the Ki-84 prop was too short, this being baked into the design permanently, and its prop could not deliver the full climb and speed performance of its power level. Its climb was very similar to a 190A-8 at 1.58 ATA, despite the Ki-84's much better power to weight ratio. The climb data placing it as similar to the 190A-8 is from "A consideration of Ki-84 performance": Original Japanese source, with a time to altitude test of a late 4 X 20 mm variant with the best late wartime engine.]

Against the P-51: "Aeroplane" p.77: "I learned how to take my fighter out of the firing line of the P-51 when being chased. I might never be able to shoot it down, but I was sure I would never be downed!"

P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."

So basically Ki-100 were better than Ki-84 because it turned much better?

 

[Irregualr23]

I do understand that generally turning is affected not only by wing area but also lift coefficient. But generally speaking, a significant reduction in wing loading tend to show that an aircraft turn better.
WW II fighters can't turn at the same rate both way likely due to the effect of their propeller?

But if that were the case, how come late war super props such as XP-72, Spiteful, P-51H, F4U-5 ..etc seem to put such great emphasized on top speed rather than turn rate?.
USN fighter such as F6F, F4U didn't turn better than A6M series either



So basically Ki-100 were better than Ki-84 because it turned much better?

It is a paradox: slower but more maneuverable planes, when flown by veteran pilots, are more likely to survive being bounced by higher-speed fighters. However, such slow dogfighters are actually less dangerous in real air warfare. Their low speed limits their opportunities to attack, and makes them easy targets while cruising. Slower planes need to pay more attention to avoid being ambushed from high-speed passes, and defensive flying is very tiring for average pilots. Faster airplanes, on the other hand, see their combat efficiency increase dramatically in formation fighting. Slower formations are easily separated and eliminated.

Having said that, it must be admitted that gun platform performance is also very important, though often neglected. A good dogfighter with superb gun platform characteristics is often confident enough to engage opponents that hold a 10–20 knot speed advantage.

 

[MikeMeech]

A bit earlier in the war the Gloster Gladiator IIRC lacked armor, the famously successful in spite of antiquated design Fairey Swordfish also lacked armor. Neither did the Italians CR.32 or most of the CR.42s have any at least initially. Some may have had plates put in behind the seat later on.

Hi
Reference the Gladiator there are references relating to armour for it in 'Knights of the Skies', extracts below:

Page 231

Page 232

Pages 238-239
Also there is a mention on page 213 of 'On Silver Wings' by Lumsden and Thetford:

And some evidence for it is mentioned in 'Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41' by Shores, Cull and Malizia, page 372:

With an interesting image on page 128 showing the 'Blenheim' prop and engine fitted to a Gladiator:

Mike

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I do understand that generally turning is affected not only by wing area but also lift coefficient. But generally speaking, a significant reduction in wing loading tend to show that an aircraft turn better.
WW II fighters can't turn at the same rate both way likely due to the effect of their propeller?

This data is from the Soviet turn-time tests (among a few other sources) and these reveal that many though not all WW2 fighters had different turn times turning left vs right, usually by relatively low factor like half a second or one second. These tests measured 360 degree turns at low (1,000 meter) altitude for dozens of fighter types. You can see some of the data here

Obviously turn times are different at different altitudes, depending on many factors including wing thickness / overall drag, and engine power at altitude. For example the British fighters like the Hurricane seem to turn better at somewhat higher altitude. 1,000 meters is very low and thick air.

There are also apparently some misleading / non historical numbers around which are based on video games.

A few examples from the real Soviet tests related to Pacific Theater

P-39D-2 Airacobra - 17.7 seconds (left) 18.7 seconds (right)
P-400 Airacobra - (lightened, 1942) 18.2 seconds (both)
P-39L-1 (1943) - 18.5 seconds (both)
P-39N-1 - 19 seconds (both)
P-39Q-25 (1944) - 19 seconds (left) 20 seconds (right)
P-39Q-10 (1943 with gunpods) 20 seconds (left), 21 seconds (right)
Spitfire F Mk IX (1944) - 17.5 seconds (both)
Spitfire LF. Mk IXE (1945) - 18.5 seconds (both)
Spitfire Mk VB (1943) - 18.8 seconds (both)
Spitfire HF. Mi IX (1945) - 19 seconds (both)
Hurricane IIB (1942) - 20.5 seconds (both)
Hurricane IIC (1943) - 20 seconds (both)
P-40C 18 seconds (both)
P-40E (1942) - 19.2 seconds (both)
P-40M (1943) - 18.8 seconds (both)
P-47D-10 (1944) - 26 seconds (both)
P-47D (1945) - 27 seconds (left), 28 seconds (right)

And a few German fighters
Bf 109E-3 (1940 at 1.33 ata) 23 seconds (left), 26 seconds (right)*
Bf 109F-2 -19.2 seconds (left), 19.8 seconds (right)
Bf 109F-4 - 19.6 seconds (left) 20.5 seconds (right)
Bf 109G-2 (1943) - 20.5 seconds (left), 21 seconds (right)
Bf 109G-2 (1942) 22.6 seconds (left), 22.8 seconds (right)
Fw 190A-4 - 23 seconds (left), 24 seconds (right)
Fw 190A-5 (1942 2 wing cannon) - 21 seconds (left), 22 seconds (right)
Fw 190A-8 (1944) - 21 seconds (left), 22 seconds (right)
Bf 110 (1940) - 30 seconds (both)

* system notes that this test showed supercharger problems ant that the German specs say 18.92 seconds at Sea Level

The difference is apparently due to the effects of engine torque so yes the propeller, essentially.

Some aircraft had much less of a problem or apparently no problem, due to design features. The Italian Macchi MC.202 for example had it's vertical stabilizer slightly offset plus a shorter wing on one side. Bf 109, P-51, and Hurricane all also had some offset on the tail fin for the same reason. Later war P-40s were lengthened by about 2 feet to improve handling at high speeds.

This became more pronounced at higher speeds, for example (interestingly, to me) both the A6M and Bf 109 had trouble turning and rolling at high speed against the direction of the torque. This became a known limitation of both types, Bf 109 had trouble rolling right above 330 mph, a trait which was exploited by Allied pilots who often escaped in a dive by rolling and then turning to the right. A6M also suffered control stiffening above 300 mph.

But if that were the case, how come late war super props such as XP-72, Spiteful, P-51H, F4U-5 ..etc seem to put such great emphasized on top speed rather than turn rate?.
USN fighter such as F6F, F4U didn't turn better than A6M series either

This idea of all air combat between fighters meant dogfighting which inevitably devolved to low speed turn fights seems to mainly derive from Pierre Clostermann's memoir, and he is definitely an outlier. Many other pilots describe dogfighting at middling speeds (200 -250 mph) which seems to be very common in the mid-war (and was part of official tactics for many US fighters) and it's clear that higher speed (300 mph+) passes were also quite routine.

The high speed shooting passes became much more viable (in terms of getting hits) after the advent of the British designed Mk II Gyro-Gunsight, introduced to British fighters in 1943 and then as the K-14 Gyro Gunsight to US fighters in 1944. I think that had a lot to do with the success of higher speed fighting tactics. Improved tracers and 'flash' bullets also helped.

So basically Ki-100 were better than Ki-84 because it turned much better?

I think it was a combination of good performance, good agility and good handling right in a kind of sweet spot balancing the three factors. Plus reliability. A bit like the F6F for the Americans.

Good in most relevant categories vs great in one and poor in another, in other words.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hi
Reference the Gladiator there are references relating to armour for it in 'Knights of the Skies', extracts below:
View attachment 883443
Page 231
View attachment 883445
Page 232
View attachment 883446
Pages 238-239
Also there is a mention on page 213 of 'On Silver Wings' by Lumsden and Thetford:
View attachment 883447
And some evidence for it is mentioned in 'Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41' by Shores, Cull and Malizia, page 372:View attachment 883448
With an interesting image on page 128 showing the 'Blenheim' prop and engine fitted to a Gladiator:
View attachment 883449
Mike

I stand corrected, again! Looks like that "knight's of the sky" book is a very good source that I need for my library!

 

[wrathofatlantis]

I do understand that generally turning is affected not only by wing area but also lift coefficient. But generally speaking, a significant reduction in wing loading tend to show that an aircraft turn better.
WW II fighters can't turn at the same rate both way likely due to the effect of their propeller?

But if that were the case, how come late war super props such as XP-72, Spiteful, P-51H, F4U-5 ..etc seem to put such great emphasized on top speed rather than turn rate?.
USN fighter such as F6F, F4U didn't turn better than A6M series either

Wing loading helps, but is not fully predictive. I think the prop spiral accelerated the wing top air more on fat nose shorter nose types... Squeezed air accelerates more and more from an increased restriction, contrary to traffic...

As for the Zero, it refused to make circles by doctrine, and all it ever did was Hit and Run and a twisted loop called the Hinero-Komi (Saburo Sakai: "No two pilot had the same Hinero-Komi.")

-Drachinifeld, YT, "Zero or Hero?" (Interview with Justin Pyke, UCalgary MA in Military and Intelligence
History, @CBI_PTO_History) 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics (hit and run) indicated the
Zero lacked maneuverability." 59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a
small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable." 59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the
reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight." 1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not
engage in a turning duel." 1:01:42 USN pilot comment (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally
poor fighter tactics: Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our
tails." (meaning they generally didn't...)


View: https://youtu.be/ApOfbxpL4Dg?si=feegNZnivaNZtmaN

So basically Ki-100 were better than Ki-84 because it turned much better?

Yes. The Ki-100 also turn-climbed much better, and probably climbed better.

The Ki-84 having the Ho-5 in the wings allowed the full 800 rpm rate of fire, while the Ki-100 had its two 20 mm Ho-5s in the nose, and because Ho-5s were Browning designs, the prop synchronisation dropped the rate to 500-550 rpm... The Ki-84 could be considered to have a firepower advantage because of wing location. This is why Browning .50s rarely if ever fired through the prop in US designs...

The Japanese Navy had cannons in the wings, outside the prop, but these Type 99-IIs put-putted at 475 rpm even without synchronisation(!)... The Japanese Army guns were twice as fast, though they fired lighter shells. Even the German Mg 151 had 20% lighter shells than the IJN Type 99. Given the importance of firing rate when firing at point-blank range for a split second, most Japanese Navy pilot interviews have them bitterly complain about the slow put-putting sound of their Type 99s... It is a recurring theme.

Since the Navy did not practice prolonged circle fighting, they --really-- needed the high firing rate (or more guns)... As a consequence, the last 1500 A6M Zeros (15% of the total) all got hugely increased firepower (5 guns) to try to help that, as the 5-gun A6M5c was produced from October 1944. It was a major improvement for the Zero to go from 2 20 mms and two 7.7 mms to 2 X 20 mm and 3 X 13 mm, and the net increase in weight, if the seat armour and rear glass armour was removed, was only 250 pounds NET over the A6M5b, mostly in the wings from those extra 13 mms... (340 pounds with the rear armour)

To give an idea, the P-51D was plus 505 pounds NET to the P-51B, at the same fuel load... 340 pounds in the wings alone...

 

[skultew]

but these Type 99-IIs put-putted at 475 rpm

Since second part of 1944 year the production of special fire rate increasing device for Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 was started. It was increasing fire rate to 620 rounds per minute.

This device could be installed to any plane equipped with Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 but unfortunately it is not known how much Zeros got it because gun with this device didn't get any new name and wasn't written in plane manuals

 

[tomo pauk]

Since second part of 1944 year the production of special fire rate increasing device for Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 was started. It was increasing fire rate to 620 rounds per minute.

This device could be installed to any plane equipped with Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 but unfortunately it is not known how much Zeros got it because gun with this device didn't get any new name and wasn't written in plane manuals

That is very interesting. Can you provide a source?

 

[skultew]

That is very interesting. Can you provide a source?

It is described at several books and documents

From document. Here is text about Type 99 Mark 2 Model 5 but in text it mention the Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 with higher RPM - 620 per minute.

After trying to understand how to differ the higher RPM modification, came to the idea that "devices" were that side panels, which are sometimes seen on photographs of Type 99s.

The photo of Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 with higher RPM by Japanese researcher A6M232

Photo of Type 99s with this device

Photo of device without covers

As again it is only my theory that this panels are the parts of device to increase fire rate but I am hardly sure it is.
Especially because it is described as something what can be attached to the gun without factory modifications and etc and it looks pretty similar to it.

It's disappointing that this version hasn't received a new designation in the Japanese weapons system and therefore the fake names like "Type 99 with increased fire rate" has to be used.
This also significantly complicates the process of tracing which aircraft may have carried this weapon.

In book どうして？で読み解く零戦発達史 is written that in 343 Ku mainly N1Ks were getting this devices and not Zero but it is information only about one squadron and we don't know how much devices other units were getting

 

[tomo pauk]

Excellent, thank you

 

[mig-31bm]

As for the Zero, it refused to make circles by doctrine, and all it ever did was Hit and Run and a twisted loop called the Hinero-Komi (Saburo Sakai: "No two pilot had the same Hinero-Komi.")

It kinda look like a vertical loop I think

-Drachinifeld, YT, "Zero or Hero?" (Interview with Justin Pyke, UCalgary MA in Military and Intelligence
History, @CBI_PTO_History) 59:07 "Intelligence reports assumed that these tactics (hit and run) indicated the
Zero lacked maneuverability." 59:22 "Judging from their apparently long fuselage, these planes do not have a
small turning circle, and are not very maneuverable." 59:33 "The Chinese report in question noted the
reluctance of the Japanese Navy pilots to dogfight." 1:00:05 "Chinese pilots report that the Japanese will not
engage in a turning duel." 1:01:42 USN pilot comment (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally
poor fighter tactics: Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our
tails." (meaning they generally didn't...)


View: https://youtu.be/ApOfbxpL4Dg?si=feegNZnivaNZtmaN

If I recalled correctly, that is because Zero couldn't roll at high speed right? so if the speed is high, allies aircraft can just roll to disengage

Yes. The Ki-100 also turn-climbed much better, and probably climbed better.

The Ki-84 having the Ho-5 in the wings allowed the full 800 rpm rate of fire, while the Ki-100 had its two 20 mm Ho-5s in the nose, and because Ho-5s were Browning designs, the prop synchronisation dropped the rate to 500-550 rpm... The Ki-84 could be considered to have a firepower advantage because of wing location. This is why Browning .50s rarely if ever fired through the prop in US designs...

Wouldn't the wing mounted gun have less concentration at certain range and less range compared to nose mounted gun?. I mean wing mounted gun need to be adjust to converged while nose gun can just fire straight ahead
I mean take for example: P-47 vs P-38, the gun on P-38 are a lot more concentrated at all range

 

[wrathofatlantis]

If I recalled correctly, that is because Zero couldn't roll at high speed right? so if the speed is high, allies aircraft can just roll to disengage

The roll rate had little to do with it. You just have to accept the A6M refused to turn throughout the War, despite the constructions historians have made of this... It is a theoretical construction at odds with actual first hand observations.

An Allied pilot testing a crashed Zero and then saying "Turns, that's what should be done with it." is not a first hand experience of how Japanese pilots actually used it, even if the Allied conclusion is rationally correct.

The fundamental issue was that the Japanese Navy was hostile to circle fighting (to further distinguish from just doing quick 90-180 degree turns).

Do you think these guys were creative individualists who went against the doctrines taught by the most prestigious institutions in Japan?:

"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history

I discussed this point with the Intelligence historian who (creditably) made a slight dent into this ridiculous historical myth, Justin Pyke (interviewed in the video I linked above). This is what he came back with:

"My modest contribution to
the discussion regarding IJNAS pilots making use of vertical maneuver
and energy fighting stems primarily from my work digesting
intelligence reports describing Japanese fighter use in China from
1937-41. They certainly also engaged in horizontal turning duels when
they deemed it appropriate to do so."

The problem with this is... I did see one early WWII example of a Zero making circles, in Saburo Sakai's "Samurai!", where even the lighter A6M2 could just stay behind a Wildcat, but this is one of the rare examples of multiple circles involving the Zero. I have hundreds of cases of the P-47 making 4 consecutive circles. Aside Saburo Sakai, I can't remember ONE involving the Zero...

The Zero really liked vertical loops, that is for sure...

So basically Justin Pyke's bland assertion that Japanese pilots acted efficiently, and made circles when needed, is just that, an assumption. And it is disagreed with by a US pilot with actual first hand experience. And Mr Pyke had the gall to disagree with him(!) in that video, concerning the pilot's assertion that slowing down and turning was inherently superior to speed!:

1:01:42 USN pilot after action report (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails."

And Justin Pyke: "Now I don't agree with his assessment that this was poor tactics. Hit and Run and energy fighting was just the way aerial tactics had moved around the world. You didn't want to dogfight all the time."

Yeah, except for P-47s making 4 consecutive circles all day 2 years later, and a FW-190D-9 pilot using only 60% power 3 years later. Other than that, it was all about energy fighting, trust me Bro.

So he thinks he knows better than the guy who was actually there?

As to the roll rate:

The roll rate had only a moderate use in combat, because once engaged in a turn rolling out was the most amateurish mistake you could make... The Germans, unfortunately for them, were very prone to this error, a mistake the high roll rate of the FW-190A only encouraged:

-Maj. Robert Elder, 24 March 1945 (P-51D): "With this top cover to encourage me, I managed
to out-turn another FW-190, and, just as I was about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed
his turn (they are stupid that way) and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got
strikes all over the plane and he caught fire in the air and crashed. (As I was shooting the above FW 190 down, another FW 190 got on to me and Lt. Colonel Bliekenstaff came down and shot him off. )"

Note that seconds after he reversed the turn, a friendly came behind the P-51s to help him out... That is why you never reversed your turn...:

-Capt. Glendon V. Davis, March 8 1944 (P-51B): "I turned into him and he (lone FW-190A)
swung around, almost getting on the tail of Lt. Smith, following me. I called to him to put down
flaps and turn with him, as I had 20 degrees myself. We went around five or six times with the
issue very much in doubt. I could not quite get enough deflection to nail him, though I was
firing short bursts trying to get him to roll out, which he was too smart to do."

Osprey "VIII Fighter Command at War, -Long Reach-", P. 31 (On the tactical significance
of using the roll rate in combat, Lt. Col. H. C. Craig):
"Once a turn is started in an engagement, it is of the most importance, and safety, to remember
to never reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the
victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed the turn."

Even if you were losing a turn fight, you had a radio to call for help while the turn kept you alive and in one spot... That is the dynamic that mattered here.

Wouldn't the wing mounted gun have less concentration at certain range and less range compared to nose mounted gun?. I mean wing mounted gun need to be adjust to converged while nose gun can just fire straight ahead
I mean take for example: P-47 vs P-38, the gun on P-38 are a lot more concentrated at all range

That concentration definitely helped for Hit and Run, because Hit and Run forced such closeness that the wing guns went wide. But the whole point of turn fighting is that it gave longer windows at a greater range that was also constant. Which is why by 1945 turning was becoming the main tactic of everyone except the Japanese Navy... The Hellcat in 1945? Mostly turns, and it could turn with everything the Japanese had except the Oscar (and it certainly out-turned the Ki-84, to say nothing of how wide the margin was with the FM-2 Wildcat...). The late A6M5c was probably little better than on par with the Hellcat, but in one well-known account the A6M5b is badly out-turned by an FM-2 Wildcat (the last one to take off from the St-Lo just before it was sunk).

 

[Shortround6]

The Ki-84 having the Ho-5 in the wings allowed the full 800 rpm rate of fire, while the Ki-100 had its two 20 mm Ho-5s in the nose, and because Ho-5s were Browning designs, the prop synchronisation dropped the rate to 500-550 rpm... The Ki-84 could be considered to have a firepower advantage because of wing location. This is why Browning .50s rarely if ever fired through the prop in US designs...

Wouldn't the wing mounted gun have less concentration at certain range and less range compared to nose mounted gun?. I mean wing mounted gun need to be adjust to converged while nose gun can just fire straight ahead
I mean take for example: P-47 vs P-38, the gun on P-38 are a lot more concentrated at all range

Sometimes things are more complicated than they seem and sometimes they are less complicated than they seem.
Japanese screwed up with the ki-61 design. The wing would not take a big gun inside the wing. They had to fit the MG 151 which is not a large 20mm gun, under the wing.
Ki-100 is just a Ki-61 with a new engine.
Neither Japanese gun is a long-range wonder. 12.7mm ammo

Bullets are light in weight compared to the American .50cal and are blunt in shape and start out over 10% slower. They slow down a lot quicker.
20mm cannon ammo.

Japanese army 20x94 ammo used the lightest shell, while not the worst shape it was not good.
The key here is not so much trajectory but time of flight. How much aim off (lead) did the pilots have to use?
What is the size of the intended target/s?
The Ki-84 maximized the rate of fire of it's 20mm guns but the Ki-84 & Ki-100 did not have long range guns to begin with.
Ki-100 needed a redesigned wing to fit 20mm cannon in the wing. Not saying it could not be done. But it needed time which the Japanese did not have.

P-47 and P-38 are two extremes.
Very few other fighters used more than 3 guns in the fuselage.
Very few other fighters had the pilots head (line of sight) as far above the wing guns as the P-47 (F6F?) and again, aside from the navy fighters (and the Typhoon/Tempest) very few fighters had their wing guns as widely spaced as the P-47. For the P-47 drop a 4-5ft circle into that pattern for fuselage target and figure out the distances the P-47 can get hits at.
Now figure out the oval (ellipse?) of fighter that is even a mild defection shot (5 O'clock or 7 O'clock). Now drop a twin engine bomber into that P-47 firing diagram.
The US .50 and the Soviet 12.7mm (and Japanese Navy 13.2mm) were the best common long range guns (shortest time of flight) commonly mounted in WW II.
The 20mm guns were more destructive.
The real problem was that few pilots could actually hit anything much passed 300-400yds/meters. A 300mph airplane is moving at 134meters per second and if it take around 0.5 seconds for the bullets to reach 300 meters there is a real problem with aiming.

 

[mig-31bm]

The roll rate had little to do with it. You just have to accept the A6M refused to turn throughout the War, despite the constructions historians have made of this... It is a theoretical construction at odds with actual first hand observations.

An Allied pilot testing a crashed Zero and then saying "Turns, that's what should be done with it." is not a first hand experience of how Japanese pilots actually used it, even if the Allied conclusion is rationally correct.

The fundamental issue was that the Japanese Navy was hostile to circle fighting (to further distinguish from just doing quick 90-180 degree turns).

Do you think these guys were creative individualists who went against the doctrines taught by the most prestigious institutions in Japan?:

"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history

I discussed this point with the Intelligence historian who (creditably) made a slight dent into this ridiculous historical myth, Justin Pyke (interviewed in the video I linked above). This is what he came back with:

"My modest contribution to
the discussion regarding IJNAS pilots making use of vertical maneuver
and energy fighting stems primarily from my work digesting
intelligence reports describing Japanese fighter use in China from
1937-41. They certainly also engaged in horizontal turning duels when
they deemed it appropriate to do so."

The problem with this is... I did see one early WWII example of a Zero making circles, in Saburo Sakai's "Samurai!", where even the lighter A6M2 could just stay behind a Wildcat, but this is one of the rare examples of multiple circles involving the Zero. I have hundreds of cases of the P-47 making 4 consecutive circles. Aside Saburo Sakai, I can't remember ONE involving the Zero...

The Zero really liked vertical loops, that is for sure...

So basically Justin Pyke's bland assertion that Japanese pilots acted efficiently, and made circles when needed, is just that, an assumption. And it is disagreed with by a US pilot with actual first hand experience. And Mr Pyke had the gall to disagree with him(!) in that video, concerning the pilot's assertion that slowing down and turning was inherently superior to speed!:

1:01:42 USN pilot after action report (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails."

And Justin Pyke: "Now I don't agree with his assessment that this was poor tactics. Hit and Run and energy fighting was just the way aerial tactics had moved around the world. You didn't want to dogfight all the time."

Yeah, except for P-47s making 4 consecutive circles all day 2 years later, and a FW-190D-9 pilot using only 60% power 3 years later. Other than that, it was all about energy fighting, trust me Bro.
So he thinks he knows better than the guy who was actually there?

Now I'm super confused, weren't A6M achieve significant domination over F4F at start of the war due to having superior turn rate?. And that only start to change once F4F started to use boom and zoom tactic.
The F6F that introduced later on and successful achieve 20-1 kill ratio over the Zero also has worse turn rate than F4F and Zero.
What you are telling me is that they all used boom and zoom from the start and Zero could have dominate till end of the war if the pilot were trained to turn fighting instead?

That concentration definitely helped for Hit and Run, because Hit and Run forced such closeness that the wing guns went wide. But the whole point of turn fighting is that it gave longer windows at a greater range that was also constant. Which is why by 1945 turning was becoming the main tactic of everyone except the Japanese Navy... The Hellcat in 1945? Mostly turns, and it could turn with everything the Japanese had except the Oscar (and it certainly out-turned the Ki-84, to say nothing of how wide the margin was with the FM-2 Wildcat...). The late A6M5c was probably little better than on par with the Hellcat, but in one well-known account the A6M5b is badly out-turned by an FM-2 Wildcat (the last one to take off from the St-Lo just before it was sunk).

That is honestly go opposite of everything I ever read about WW II combat. I mean literally the only program which seemingly produce lighter fighters than previous version are the XP-51J, XP-51G and XP-51F. The rest seem to emphasize speed over agility

 

[Greg Boeser]

You've been lied to. Zeroes and Spitfires couldn't turn. Fw 190s could outturn everyone. You just had to go real slow.
Several nations developed tactics for fast fighters to defeat slow, maneuverable biplane fighters based on actual combat experience. The Germans, the Japanese, and the Finns. All variations of the Zoom and Boom. Gain height advantage, attack with surprise, use superior speed to seperate, climb back up and reposition or if conditions were not favorable, disengage. These tactics worked well against the Chinese, Soviet Union and in Spain, as well as the cumbersome vics used by France, the UK and the neutral countries.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The roll rate had little to do with it. You just have to accept the A6M refused to turn throughout the War, despite the constructions historians have made of this... It is a theoretical construction at odds with actual first hand observations.

An Allied pilot testing a crashed Zero and then saying "Turns, that's what should be done with it." is not a first hand experience of how Japanese pilots actually used it, even if the Allied conclusion is rationally correct.

The fundamental issue was that the Japanese Navy was hostile to circle fighting (to further distinguish from just doing quick 90-180 degree turns).

Do you think these guys were creative individualists who went against the doctrines taught by the most prestigious institutions in Japan?:

"On October 21, 1943, the Group launched eight aircraft along with four Mustangs from the 530th on a big Japanese supply dump at Kamaing in Burma. The 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero [Mitsubishi A6M] down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight. At this point, Lt. Arasmith had two confirmed kills, but the fight wasn't over…"-311th Fighter Group Unit history

I discussed this point with the Intelligence historian who (creditably) made a slight dent into this ridiculous historical myth, Justin Pyke (interviewed in the video I linked above). This is what he came back with:

"My modest contribution to
the discussion regarding IJNAS pilots making use of vertical maneuver
and energy fighting stems primarily from my work digesting
intelligence reports describing Japanese fighter use in China from
1937-41. They certainly also engaged in horizontal turning duels when
they deemed it appropriate to do so."

The problem with this is... I did see one early WWII example of a Zero making circles, in Saburo Sakai's "Samurai!", where even the lighter A6M2 could just stay behind a Wildcat, but this is one of the rare examples of multiple circles involving the Zero. I have hundreds of cases of the P-47 making 4 consecutive circles. Aside Saburo Sakai, I can't remember ONE involving the Zero...

The Zero really liked vertical loops, that is for sure...

So basically Justin Pyke's bland assertion that Japanese pilots acted efficiently, and made circles when needed, is just that, an assumption. And it is disagreed with by a US pilot with actual first hand experience. And Mr Pyke had the gall to disagree with him(!) in that video, concerning the pilot's assertion that slowing down and turning was inherently superior to speed!:

1:01:42 USN pilot after action report (1942): "In my opinion, they [Zero pilots] had generally poor fighter tactics: Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttles and sit on our tails."

And Justin Pyke: "Now I don't agree with his assessment that this was poor tactics. Hit and Run and energy fighting was just the way aerial tactics had moved around the world. You didn't want to dogfight all the time."

Yeah, except for P-47s making 4 consecutive circles all day 2 years later, and a FW-190D-9 pilot using only 60% power 3 years later. Other than that, it was all about energy fighting, trust me Bro.

So he thinks he knows better than the guy who was actually there?

As to the roll rate:

The roll rate had only a moderate use in combat, because once engaged in a turn rolling out was the most amateurish mistake you could make... The Germans, unfortunately for them, were very prone to this error, a mistake the high roll rate of the FW-190A only encouraged:

-Maj. Robert Elder, 24 March 1945 (P-51D): "With this top cover to encourage me, I managed
to out-turn another FW-190, and, just as I was about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed
his turn (they are stupid that way) and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got
strikes all over the plane and he caught fire in the air and crashed. (As I was shooting the above FW 190 down, another FW 190 got on to me and Lt. Colonel Bliekenstaff came down and shot him off. )"

Note that seconds after he reversed the turn, a friendly came behind the P-51s to help him out... That is why you never reversed your turn...:View attachment 883595



-Capt. Glendon V. Davis, March 8 1944 (P-51B): "I turned into him and he (lone FW-190A)
swung around, almost getting on the tail of Lt. Smith, following me. I called to him to put down
flaps and turn with him, as I had 20 degrees myself. We went around five or six times with the
issue very much in doubt. I could not quite get enough deflection to nail him, though I was
firing short bursts trying to get him to roll out, which he was too smart to do."

Osprey "VIII Fighter Command at War, -Long Reach-", P. 31 (On the tactical significance
of using the roll rate in combat, Lt. Col. H. C. Craig):
"Once a turn is started in an engagement, it is of the most importance, and safety, to remember
to never reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the
victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed the turn."

Even if you were losing a turn fight, you had a radio to call for help while the turn kept you alive and in one spot... That is the dynamic that mattered here.



That concentration definitely helped for Hit and Run, because Hit and Run forced such closeness that the wing guns went wide. But the whole point of turn fighting is that it gave longer windows at a greater range that was also constant. Which is why by 1945 turning was becoming the main tactic of everyone except the Japanese Navy... The Hellcat in 1945? Mostly turns, and it could turn with everything the Japanese had except the Oscar (and it certainly out-turned the Ki-84, to say nothing of how wide the margin was with the FM-2 Wildcat...). The late A6M5c was probably little better than on par with the Hellcat, but in one well-known account the A6M5b is badly out-turned by an FM-2 Wildcat (the last one to take off from the St-Lo just before it was sunk).

I think here again you are doing a frantic job of cherry picking to get answers you already want, which isn't a good way to learn anything about history.

Reversing turns was actually done and was a common tactic for many fighters. It was used by Fw 190s in particular and routinely with success in evading early Spitfires, P-47s and P-38s which all had fairly poor roll rates. Rolling scissors was also a common Luftwaffe tactic used by both Fw 190 and Bf 109 pilots.

But the success of this type of tactic depended in part on the comparative roll agility of both aircraft.

The P-51 was one of the first Allied aircraft which had a comparable roll rate to the Fw 190 at higher speed. Thus, reversing a turn in a Fw 190 which is being pursued by a P-51 in a dive is indeed a risky idea. So is rolling against a P-47 at high altitude. Later mod Spitfires had roll rate vastly improved by using metal ailerons and clipped wings - thus closing a gap which the Fw 190 had been exploiting so successfully against them. P-38s also similarly got boosted ailerons for more or less the same reason, going from one of the slowest rolling fighters in the Allied arsenal to the fastest (though not necessarily in a reversal)

Radio calls were definitely not a guarantee to get help, that greatly depended on the circumstances - to get help via the radio you needed to not only be in radio contact but also in view of friendly fighters, and it was very common for fighters to be out of radio contact and out of sight as fights broke up into small engagements spread over a very wide area and across high to low altitude.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

P-47 and P-38 are two extremes.
Very few other fighters used more than 3 guns in the fuselage.

Doesn't the Fw 190 have four guns within the propeller arc, counting the two inboard wing-guns?

Very few other fighters had the pilots head (line of sight) as far above the wing guns as the P-47 (F6F?) and again, aside from the navy fighters (and the Typhoon/Tempest) very few fighters had their wing guns as widely spaced as the P-47.

How about a Hurricane IIB or IIC? Wing guns on a P-39?

For the P-47 drop a 4-5ft circle into that pattern for fuselage target and figure out the distances the P-47 can get hits at.
Now figure out the oval (ellipse?) of fighter that is even a mild defection shot (5 O'clock or 7 O'clock). Now drop a twin engine bomber into that P-47 firing diagram.
The US .50 and the Soviet 12.7mm (and Japanese Navy 13.2mm) were the best common long range guns (shortest time of flight) commonly mounted in WW II.
The 20mm guns were more destructive.
The real problem was that few pilots could actually hit anything much passed 300-400yds/meters. A 300mph airplane is moving at 134meters per second and if it take around 0.5 seconds for the bullets to reach 300 meters there is a real problem with aiming.

Agreed, though this seemed to change somewhat when the gyro gunsights showed up

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Sometimes things are more complicated than they seem and sometimes they are less complicated than they seem.
Japanese screwed up with the ki-61 design. The wing would not take a big gun inside the wing. They had to fit the MG 151 which is not a large 20mm gun, under the wing.
Ki-100 is just a Ki-61 with a new engine.
Neither Japanese gun is a long-range wonder. 12.7mm ammo

Bullets are light in weight compared to the American .50cal and are blunt in shape and start out over 10% slower. They slow down a lot quicker.
20mm cannon ammo.
View attachment 883630
Japanese army 20x94 ammo used the lightest shell, while not the worst shape it was not good.
The key here is not so much trajectory but time of flight. How much aim off (lead) did the pilots have to use?
What is the size of the intended target/s?
The Ki-84 maximized the rate of fire of it's 20mm guns but the Ki-84 & Ki-100 did not have long range guns to begin with.
Ki-100 needed a redesigned wing to fit 20mm cannon in the wing. Not saying it could not be done. But it needed time which the Japanese did not have.

P-47 and P-38 are two extremes.
Very few other fighters used more than 3 guns in the fuselage.
Very few other fighters had the pilots head (line of sight) as far above the wing guns as the P-47 (F6F?) and again, aside from the navy fighters (and the Typhoon/Tempest) very few fighters had their wing guns as widely spaced as the P-47. For the P-47 drop a 4-5ft circle into that pattern for fuselage target and figure out the distances the P-47 can get hits at.
Now figure out the oval (ellipse?) of fighter that is even a mild defection shot (5 O'clock or 7 O'clock). Now drop a twin engine bomber into that P-47 firing diagram.
The US .50 and the Soviet 12.7mm (and Japanese Navy 13.2mm) were the best common long range guns (shortest time of flight) commonly mounted in WW II.
The 20mm guns were more destructive.
The real problem was that few pilots could actually hit anything much passed 300-400yds/meters. A 300mph airplane is moving at 134meters per second and if it take around 0.5 seconds for the bullets to reach 300 meters there is a real problem with aiming.

I think you still slightly under-estimate the problem of long-range shooting. The Hit rate was 2% overall for a reason.

850 metres per second at a target at 400 metres is an average of 790 m/s over 520 m, since at 400 mph the target moved around 120 m during the bullet flight. 790 m/s is 1767 mph. on average 0.67 second, with 120 metres covered by both target and shooter in that time..

The target at 400 mph moved 120 metres during that time, but the firer also moved 120 metres downrange during that time, which means he moved downrange with the bullet a full 120 metres at the moment of impact, so his gunsight is seeing a mismatching curved impact of 520 m on a still 400 metre target. Plus 120 metres of progress by the target. So he is in fact aiming with a 120 metres curvier trajectory at a target farther away by 120 metres... A .50 was flat enough to make it minor, but that is without the turn curvature added in...

When the British evaluated a captured 190, they found the guns were set up to hit ten feet high at 150 metres... The Germans didn't mess around...

You didn't want the guns shooting at point of aim when static on the ground, but I suspect that is how many of them were set up...

And that is one minor reason why flying slower was better: If you went slower you might literally see your shots become straighter, because instead of going downrange at 20%-25% the bullet speed you only followed them at 10%.