PDA

View Full Version : Turn rate and payload



Insuber
08-23-2010, 03:44 AM
Fellow pilots,

I need your wisdom regarding the following: is the turn rate in Il2 affected by the payload, and how? The issue came out when an online 109 G10 pilot complained that he was outturned by a Tempest V loaded with rockets and bombs, at around 350-400 kmh.

I need just the IL2 case, please avoid academic treaties on wing load etc.

Thanks,
Insuber

pupo162
08-23-2010, 05:11 AM
in more than one ocasion i've witnesed lost of turning speed in il2 do to extensive payload:

once in an internal campaign i lost a turn-fight while my ruskie opponent was flying a yak1b, and me was flying the same model , captured, yak1b, but i was carrying rockets in my wings: this proved to be a dicisive factor on is victory.

other examples turn to dogfights between same model migs and 109s, where 1 is carrying gunpods the other not.
Was the g10 carrying gunpods? was he carrying near full tank fuel? or pheraps the tempest was in a slower speed taht your friend tough?

my point is, out of experience in this game, ive seen planes losing performence both in speed and turn rate as a result of extra-payload

cheers

BillSwagger
08-23-2010, 05:33 AM
It probably depends more on the plane insuber, because the payload is factored into the overall weight of the plane. Same as fuel.
The difference between 25% and 100% fuel can be as much as 1000lbs fuel weight on heavy planes like the Tempest.
So a plane carrying 1000lbs of ordinance would be effected similarly as having more fuel.
Lighter planes like 109s and Spits seem to be effected more by the pay load. 25% fuel may only equate to 100lbs on these aircraft. Carrying a FAB250 is going to impact their performance much more.


Bill

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 06:03 AM
please avoid academic treaties on wing load etc

That's fine if it means you already know how things work well enough to do some fair checking yourself. But then why haven't you?

I know that in IL2 it is harder to take off with a payload. Check stall speeds. IL2 is true enough to work that way, it's not table-driven. You can check that without doing any math whatsoever. Last of all, when someone cries don't take that as proof they knew just how everything happened. That's the start point, next time get a track.

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The difference between 25% and 100% fuel can be as much as 1000lbs fuel weight on heavy planes like the Tempest.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The OP wants: is the turn rate in Il2 affected by the payload, I need just the IL2 case

The difference in any plane between 25% and 100% fuel is known well enough to influence loading choices since the start, even in the 2001 demo just that made a difference. Load affects the flight model. That is the IL2 case.

BillSwagger
08-23-2010, 07:01 AM
This question came up on a mod site before, and with out diving too deep into that discussion, the issue isn't a matter that "if" its factored in, because it is.
The explanation i got was that if you carry 1000lbs of bombs on your wings, or 1000lbs of "extra" fuel, the engine distributes the added weight just the same. I haven't tested this but as i posted above, some planes appear to be effected more so by ordinance than others.

Bill

Insuber
08-23-2010, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
please avoid academic treaties on wing load etc

That's fine if it means you already know how things work well enough to do some fair checking yourself. But then why haven't you?

Gunz,

Simple, I hate to reinvent the wheel. That said, if nobody comes with a good answer I will check it by myself.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:

I know that in IL2 it is harder to take off with a payload. Check stall speeds. IL2 is true enough to work that way, it's not table-driven. You can check that without doing any math whatsoever. Last of all, when someone cries don't take that as proof they knew just how everything happened. That's the start point, next time get a track.

Right, the payload affects stall speeds and take off speeds in Il2. In principle, a higher wing load gives an higher turn rate, but is it the case in IL2?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Last of all, when someone cries don't take that as proof they knew just how everything happened. That's the start point, next time get a track.

Right, but the claim of that guy was just the starting point for my curiosity. BTW I always forget to record tracks (my fault) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

p-11.cAce
08-23-2010, 10:00 AM
It's pretty simple - yes the weight is factored in, and yes a heavier plane takes longer to turn in RL and IL2. The problem comes in with the fact that we don't know what fuel load he was carrying. If he was flying with low fuel and external load he would perform similar to high fuel and no external load.

Insuber
08-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Brilliant! Thank you all.

Cheers,
Insuber

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Insuber:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

I know that in IL2 it is harder to take off with a payload. Check stall speeds. IL2 is true enough to work that way, it's not table-driven. You can check that without doing any math whatsoever. Last of all, when someone cries don't take that as proof they knew just how everything happened. That's the start point, next time get a track.

Right, the payload affects stall speeds and take off speeds in Il2. In principle, a higher wing load gives an higher turn rate, but is it the case in IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sure hope it's not that way in IL2! MY copy doesn't work that way! A higher load requires more speed to make the same G's in a turn. You must go faster or pull more AoA to make the extra lift needed for the extra weight. The turn will be wider at the same G's with higher load because it is made at higher speed and the turn rate will be less. Turn rate is G's divided by velocity, more velocity means less rate.

IL2 gets these things right just by how it works. Exact -- IL2 is close in a number of decimal places way. Load making a difference in in-game stall, you can be sure that it makes same way difference in turn because it is the same code.

Insuber
08-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Right ... higher wing load = higher speed max turn rate = higher turn radius... typed too quickly ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BillSwagger
08-23-2010, 01:14 PM
Funny too, because recently i was in a dogfight with a 109, i think, using a P-47 with a 500lber on each wing.
I broke to one side and ended up snap rolling unexpectedly which shot me back facing the opposite side of the turn.
I lost SA, but figured if i continued to turn the other way the 109 wouldn't be able to reverse his turn fast enough to follow. In that case the slower turn rate made no difference, which is why in my personal opinion, i think roll rate is more important than energy bleeding turns. Shortly after, i think it was a 190 that followed me through my second turn using a high speed dive from several thousand feet. He had lead to shoot but it was an off angle shot and he missed. Its really about timing and not necessarily the ability of the plane.

I was tempted to drop my bombs in order to have a better chance, but sitting in a P-47 already at a disadvantage, i decided to see how well i could do. Having bombs impacted performance, which is why it snap rolled.




Bill

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 01:47 PM
IL2 does not distribute weight in the 3D model (internal mass is CoG) though SOW will and IL2 does not have complex structural stress (be kinda tough without distributed mass) which I dunno how SOW will be there -so- expect that snap roll would be different (slower roll with the extra weight out from center?) and I dunno if the wings would take it.

Insuber: yeah, I do the typing faster than thinking thing too. But I have more and more days where I am already slowed down and plenty time to think. Still, that last post took me over 20 minutes.

VW-IceFire
08-23-2010, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Insuber:
Fellow pilots,

I need your wisdom regarding the following: is the turn rate in Il2 affected by the payload, and how? The issue came out when an online 109 G10 pilot complained that he was outturned by a Tempest V loaded with rockets and bombs, at around 350-400 kmh.

I need just the IL2 case, please avoid academic treaties on wing load etc.

Thanks,
Insuber
Thing is that turning at 350/400kph is not something that typically lasts very long if you turn hard. At 400kph the 109G-10 tends to start to stiffen up while that is where the Tempest feels best in a turn.

Do we know if this Tempest had drop tanks, bombs or rockets? The weight from the ordinance definitely affects performance (turn, roll rate, etc.) but as others pointed out the fuel is also a consideration. May also be the relative skill of the pilots.

If you know how to maneuver a Tempest... you may be able to evade a 109 (not out turn in the strictest sense) fairly easily if the speed is high enough.

Insuber
08-23-2010, 03:10 PM
The 109 pilot didn't specify the load, moreover it was a full switch server. He said something like "I can't believe that a Tempest with bombs and rockets could overturn a 109". He was the member of a respected online squad, that's why I listened to his complaint. As far as the turn rate of the Tempest, I'm not at all an expert of that plane, but looking at IL2 compare the 109 should turn better for speeds > 380 kmh.

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 05:10 PM
If you drop or rise even a little on the turn, that can really help to tighten it. In online fight it may not be apparent to the other. There is also that a player may not be making the best turn while believing to be doing so. That is very common. Pulling too much stick is usually the fault there, also slip ball and trim use. IME a watch of speed retained is critical in sims since we don't have body cues. Lose too much speed and you don't have the lift you need, go too fast and your turn radius is too wide.

If you pull hard enough (with trim back) in a 109 while being chased, you will slow down greatly while your turn radius shrinks. The other, unless he takes action, will turn outside/'below' and pass you quickly. If you relax stick and unload he will be right in front. Don't be surprised when you are accused of bat turn cheating and told that you looped 360 in very few seconds. All it means is he was fooled and needs more such lessons, at least until he learns to make tracks and watch in slow motion. After that day it may be your turn to learn.

Stage magic would not be possible if people didn't fit what they see to what they already know. They don't see everything and fill in from what they know. The same works when reading war stories and coming away with lots more than was written.

Insuber
08-23-2010, 05:20 PM
Well, I try not to turn in a fight. It is so dangerous. Just zoom and extend, dive and climb, etc.

Insuber
08-23-2010, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Stage magic would not be possible if people didn't fit what they see to what they already know. They don't see everything and fill in from what they know. The same works when reading war stories and coming away with lots more than was written.

So true mate, and very well said.

WTE_Galway
08-23-2010, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

If you pull hard enough (with trim back) in a 109 while being chased, you will slow down greatly while your turn radius shrinks. The other, unless he takes action, will turn outside/'below' and pass you quickly. If you relax stick and unload he will be right in front. Don't be surprised when you are accused of bat turn cheating and told that you looped 360 in very few seconds. All it means is he was fooled and needs more such lessons, at least until he learns to make tracks and watch in slow motion. After that day it may be your turn to learn.


There are quotes around from wartime 109 pilots saying the optimum turn in a real life 109 (at least early war) was "egg shaped" with sections of tight turning with slats deployed and other points in the same turn where speed is built up with slats closed.

No idea if that actually works with the "in game" 109s.



Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing.

For us, the more experienced pilots, real maneuvering only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 10:54 PM
If you tilt the egg-shaped 360 with the smaller end on the high side it really works well in a faster plane vs a slower one. He won't be able to keep up -and- turn inside you, you keep the circle fast and wide and keep the G's low and you won't be an easy target. If he cuts across inside you then vary the shape or delay the drop from the upper end or exit the pattern totally.

M_Gunz
08-23-2010, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing.

For us, the more experienced pilots, real maneuvering only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny because in a not too long ago interview in Finland, Rall described that when the slats went out one would loosen the stick a bit and pssshhht, they would go back. Perhaps he would rather keep his speed but then what did the second-highest scoring Ace of WWII know? That was his answer in response to questions about slats deploying, very pointed questions.

Add: it should be noted that during the BoB there were a LOT of British pilots with little time in fighters at all. Who is Herr 109 Pilot going to choose as target but the ones he can get to? The process becomes selective by nature, not a test of planes but pilots. Same process as in other parts of the war, in many theaters.

WTE_Galway
08-24-2010, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing.

For us, the more experienced pilots, real maneuvering only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny because in a not too long ago interview in Finland, Rall described that when the slats went out one would loosen the stick a bit and pssshhht, they would go back. Perhaps he would rather keep his speed but then what did the second-highest scoring Ace of WWII know? That was his answer in response to questions about slats deploying, very pointed questions.

Add: it should be noted that during the BoB there were a LOT of British pilots with little time in fighters at all. Who is Herr 109 Pilot going to choose as target but the ones he can get to? The process becomes selective by nature, not a test of planes but pilots. Same process as in other parts of the war, in many theaters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me Leykauf and Rall are describing the same procedure, pull tight until the slats deploy and then loosen the stick so they pop back in.

I assume both pilots would vary the turn depending on the situation and only allow the slats to deploy for any length of time if firstly they could afford to lose E (no other bogeys in a position to swoop) and secondly it gave you a seriously good chance of a fight winning snapshot.

One difference I really notice between real accounts and typical sim player arguments is the real pilots do not get fixed on the one right procedure. Its more a "this works better in this scenario" story or even "this works for Joe but i needed to do it this way" . Sim players often say things like " always turn at best corner speed" .

Ironically its the other way around with things like Vref and Vne where the real pilots tended to stick rigidly to the book and sim pilots are all over the place.

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 01:32 AM
Does this sound like what Leykauf said? Rall interview in Finland: (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html)

Note that the first answer he made concerns uneven deployment in rough turns which prompted the second definite question with the clear and explicit answer.



Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. I mean, its also a matter of experience of the pilot, you know?


Use Edit->Find to locate the text I quoted and see if the surrounding context or anything else in the interview changes that meaning of:
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all.

That is not to say that other pilots did not use the slats, just that Rall did not.

When the slats come out you can pull higher AoA. Induced drag increases with the square of that extra angle on wings that are already loaded enough much higher as to need the slats to land. That is why I conjecture that Rall would rather keep his speed. IMO his experience was enough to switch tactic rather than burn speed in pursuit of angle.

Also at that site:

How at least one Finn interpreted Rall on slats, perhaps they actually spoke beyond the one interview? (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/)


First of all he didn't like the slats in the 109, he more of wished to have a larger wing than these slats on the 109 His favorite Messerschmitt was the Bf109F-4.

I do wonder if that is really two sentences missing a period after the second '109', but I include the whole because there is not.

Erkki_M
08-24-2010, 01:52 AM
Even with the slight feeling of lac-of-intertia in certain moves, and IMHO some external payloads effecting air resistance too little (some bombs, but especially rockets), IL2 still does the job about 300% better than the 2nd best WW2 sim.

If you've ever played WW2OL, in that game not only all the fuel mass, but ALL the mass of the plane is in the COG, and the planes fly in vacuum, so if you enter a spin, it will keep accelerating until you hit the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Many pilots are afraid to even touch the rudder there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

About Rall: he knew very well what the leading edge flaps did to speed and hence rate of turn... He absolutely hated them, but would still choose the 109's speed over some other aircrafts' turn any day. He knew he had the eyesight, discipline, tactics and gunnery to get in, kill, and get out from his first air to air encounter. The times he would get hit and/or shot down, better rate of turn would not have helped him, and he knew it.

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 02:17 AM
Erkki, did you have the great fortune to be there, to hear or meet or speak with him?

Erkki_M
08-24-2010, 02:35 AM
Unfortunately not.... The first time I was supposed to meet him, I couldnt make it, 2nd time I was very ill myself, over 40C temperature and bed's own for over 2 weeks, and 3rd time mr. Rall had just fallen in stairs and was grounded by doctors. 4th time, he unfortunately passed away 3 months before...

BillSwagger
08-24-2010, 07:14 AM
It would not surprise me if the early 109s were more capable of turning with spits, or even out turning them in situations where the Spitfire was hampered with a heavier load. Low speed stall contests in a time of war would've offered similar performance between these two planes, but if you took a Spit with 20 minutes of fuel, and a 109 with 20 minutes of fuel, i think it would be more cut and dry.

I recently read an exert from Saburo Sakai describing mock fights between Type 96 (A5M) fighters and their newer A6M2s. Regardless of pilot, the Type 96 was able to outperform the A6M2 in turn contests. I also wonder if these were not the "Zeros" known to out perform spitfires in similar contests.
I think as you hear more stories like these, it becomes obvious that the ability to slow turn fight was less a priority than having higher speed maneuverability.
The mistake is made in thinking good turn radius at low speed is also available to a pilot at higher speeds.
If airframes didn't offer these abilities then tactics were adjusted.
I still see the 109 as a vertical fighter, using speed more so than turn, but that's just my opinion.

To some degree I actually favor the stock P-51Ds because of their simulated G limits.
I notice i can turn gently at speeds over just 500IAS and bank at speeds just over 500IAS, but banking and turning can snap the airframe at speeds as low as 470IAS. I think its probably one of the more realistic effects in game.

Bill

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I recently read an exert from Saburo Sakai describing mock fights between Type 96 (A6M5) fighters and their newer A6M2s.

A6M2 from 1940 until late 1941 and A6M5, the _first_ which flew in Aug 1943... were they still making A6M2 in late 1943?

After the A6M2 they started putting in better superchargers, armor, weapons.


Regardless of pilot, the Type 96 was able to outperform the A6M2 in turn contests. I also wonder if these were not the "Zeros" known to out perform spitfires in similar contests.

Likely any Zero vs a contemporary Spitfire would though perhaps altitude could make a difference. IIRC there were not many Spitfires except in England at the start of the war though. Perhaps Australia had some all along though?


I think as you hear more stories like these, it becomes obvious that the ability to slow turn fight was less a priority than having higher speed maneuverability.

The Japanese were rather late picking up on that despite lessons handed to them from first the Russians and then the AVG over China and still they did not learn well.


The mistake is made in thinking good turn radius at low speed is also available to a pilot at higher speeds.
If airframes didn't offer these abilities then tactics were adjusted.

Hurricane I fits that very well and also above 12,000 ft didn't have the power to keep up a turning fight vs a 109E. Get it down low, the story changes 180 degrees below 4000 ft.

Airframe -and- engine -at- altitude. If it were possible and in some cases it was to put more thrust and better boost upgrade in a good turning airframe without weighing it down overmuch then you had a fighter that held on to much of the low speed performance while delivering at a higher speed than before. Spitfire II, Spitfire V, 109F, P-40E?


I still see the 109 as a vertical fighter, using speed more so than turn, but that's just my opinion.

Depends on what it is fighting against and at what altitude. Some matchups, the 109 may be the angles fighter and in others it is best as energy fighter. 30k feet vs P-51 or P-47, only some 109's should attempt to fight at all.

Art-J
08-24-2010, 08:38 AM
Oh, c'mon, M_Gunz, I think Bill just made a typo. Mitsubishi Type 96 is of course A5M (codename "Claude"). Manoeuvrability comparable to Type 96 was one of official requirements given to Mitsubishi engineers when they were designing the Zero.

Cheers - Art

ElAurens
08-24-2010, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:


The Japanese were rather late picking up on that despite lessons handed to them from first the Russians and then the AVG over China and still they did not learn well.



This can be very much attributed to the Japanese Pilot's cultural view of themselves as Samurai. The Japanese air services of both branches saw their aircraft as an extension of the Samurai's sword. Indeed a flawed and outdated tactical doctrine, but one that was deeply culturally inculcated.

In the West, the great air powers all saw the fighter aircraft as a high speed machine gun nest really.

Some Japanese aircraft designers did understand the more modern tactic (Kawasaki notably), but were at the mercy of the Imperial High Command, who wrote the specifications for each new design. The Ki-61 for example was originally designed with a higher wing loading, but this was rejected by the IJA who requested a better turning aircraft.

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Art-J:
Oh, c'mon, M_Gunz, I think Bill just made a typo.

Gee, that and maybe he knows something I don't must be why I -asked-. Because for all I know, he didn't make any mistake.

But YOU know better and YOU even know what I really meant better than I do which is just fantastic!

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:


The Japanese were rather late picking up on that despite lessons handed to them from first the Russians and then the AVG over China and still they did not learn well.



This can be very much attributed to the Japanese Pilot's cultural view of themselves as Samurai. The Japanese air services of both branches saw their aircraft as an extension of the Samurai's sword. Indeed a flawed and outdated tactical doctrine, but one that was deeply culturally inculcated.

In the West, the great air powers all saw the fighter aircraft as a high speed machine gun nest really.

Some Japanese aircraft designers did understand the more modern tactic (Kawasaki notably), but were at the mercy of the Imperial High Command, who wrote the specifications for each new design. The Ki-61 for example was originally designed with a higher wing loading, but this was rejected by the IJA who requested a better turning aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah they did make the Hayate and I was impressed on the development history of the "Dinah with the nice linah".

The doctrine probably was the major block and indeed the new approach had been started earlier in the West. Actually the doctrine of speed and slashing attacks started in WWI AFAIK.

ElAurens
08-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Yeah they did make the Hayate and I was impressed on the development history of the "Dinah with the nice linah".


You really cannot fault the Japanese designers. Especially when you consider the specs they were given, the A6M is a great case in point. The IJN wanted a faster aircraft than the Claude, with a range to be able to escort the new Betty (1500 miles or so), also having a high rate of climb, cannon armament, extreme maneuverability, ability to operate off of aircraft carriers, easy field serviceability, oh, and you only have 1000bhp to play with (initially).

For it's time period the Zero was a brilliant design considering what Combined Fleet was asking for.

The Dinah you have noted, and we need only look at the Shinden to see that the reach of Japan's aeronautical engineers was really only held back (thankfully) by their old school General Staff and lagging industrial capability, even before we decimated it.

BillSwagger
08-24-2010, 02:43 PM
I can't discredit the Japanese because they rolled most of the map in the Pacific rather quickly.
They also advanced on the Chinese front at a fairly rapid pace.
I think its easy to pick apart the apparent flaws of their fighter doctrine, which to a large extent was actually very successful. Even the A6M evolved into a machine capable of faster dives and many of their planes were capable fighters at higher altitudes.
I also don't forget that island hopping campaigns succeeded by the US, were met by heavy opposition.
The US had more bodies and machines to throw at the war, which inevitably would be cause for Japans downfall.

It could also be said that you are only as good as the opponents you face and perhaps Japan's eagerness to advance in the Pacific only grew because noone was capable of opposing it.

Bill

ElAurens
08-24-2010, 04:17 PM
Well, since we are going off topic...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Japan's early success against an under equipped and ill trained Chinese Air Force only served to reinforce their incorrect tactical dogma, and made them over-estimate their own capabilities even more. Remember that in the initial stages of the wider Pacific War, Japan committed all her reserves. They were hoping for a devastating result (which they achieved) that would force the Allies into a quick capitulation on Japan's terms. When this calculation proved totally wrong, they had nothing left to fall back on, and the war was essentially lost for them, even though it took almost four more years to finish the job. If the US and Great Britain had not been fighting in Europe and could have put the full weight of their military against Imperial Japan from December 1941, the Japanese might have held on for a year, at most.

M_Gunz
08-24-2010, 09:24 PM
US fighting in Europe, or even Africa when? 1943....

Didn't really get started fighting in the Pacific until 1942 and turned the point that year at Midway. Guadalcanal was a near thing as it was. Fighting near halfway around the world from home while trying to get production going, that's what took so long. Between the economy and politics the US was truly the "Sleeping Giant" that Yamamoto warned his leaders of.
As for the Japanese, you'd think they'd have known better. Same amount of effort done peacefully as traders, they could have been great and stayed that way.

JtD
08-25-2010, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
...If the US and Great Britain had not been fighting in Europe and could have put the full weight of their military against Imperial Japan from December 1941, the Japanese might have held on for a year, at most...

Only if they had managed to develop the A-bomb within that year. Which they wouldn't.

Or, if they had attacked Japan in an all out war on December 1st, 1941.

But assuming that a full scale reaction to the Japanese attacks would have resulted in a completely occupied Japan by December 1942, is just phantastic.

And assuming that Japan would have used the same strategy it did even in a completely different global situation, is nonsense.

Insuber
08-25-2010, 03:41 AM
Interesting ... from turn rate to alternative history in the PTO ... next time I will try with a topic on the impact of bees extinction on Florida's almonds production ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
08-25-2010, 04:03 AM
Well, your question has been answered, so I though it might be fun to pick up an interesting sidetrack. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif