PDA

View Full Version : Delayed (Death!) bail out in A6M2-21



hkg36sd
06-12-2006, 09:41 PM
Recently started replaying some of the single player campaigns and I noticed that when in the A6M2-21, if you get hit in the forward quarter, and the result is an engine fire, you are 'stuck' and cannot bail-out!! You can even slide the canopy open but the plane continues burning till either you turn crispy and your Zero explodes! I thought it was me, but I've been able to replicate it several times.

Anyone know if any other aircraft has this 'feature'??(Besides the fact that it is a tinderbox)

hkg36sd
06-12-2006, 09:41 PM
Recently started replaying some of the single player campaigns and I noticed that when in the A6M2-21, if you get hit in the forward quarter, and the result is an engine fire, you are 'stuck' and cannot bail-out!! You can even slide the canopy open but the plane continues burning till either you turn crispy and your Zero explodes! I thought it was me, but I've been able to replicate it several times.

Anyone know if any other aircraft has this 'feature'??(Besides the fact that it is a tinderbox)

TankerAce
06-13-2006, 12:21 AM
Its because in the early phase of the war the Japanese didn't use parachutes. They just rode their plane down, as death is more honorable than jumping (supposedly).

I think there is some kind of tweak you can add in one of the ini files to allow parachutes (and then you can jump).

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-13-2006, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think there is some kind of tweak you can add in one of the ini files to allow parachutes (and then you can jump). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What??? You are kidding, aren't you? Add some smilie, c'mon! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

money_money
06-13-2006, 12:42 AM
U can add

UseParachutes=1

to your conf.ini if u want. But can u bail from normal flight?

&lt;3 $

hkg36sd
06-13-2006, 01:58 AM
Maybe your right As I haven't flown the campaigns in a bit. Was it always like this or did they add this in one of the patches Yet..coulda sworn I saw the AI planes jump with chutes though...

"They just rode their plane down, as death is more honorable than jumping (supposedly)."

Guess they didn't consider the horrible agony of burning alive as your plane went down.

Thanks for posting the *.ini addendum all!!

HotelBushranger
06-13-2006, 03:48 AM
Learn some more Japanese military history mate! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

joeap
06-13-2006, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TankerAce:
Its because in the early phase of the war the Japanese didn't use parachutes. They just rode their plane down, as death is more honorable than jumping (supposedly).

I think there is some kind of tweak you can add in one of the ini files to allow parachutes (and then you can jump). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Betty crew had parachutes for example. the reason, as explained by Saburo Sakai was simple. Saving space, the Zeros were cramped and of course built for long range, so many pilots decided to remove their chutes and radios to boot. Don't forget the Zeros were able to fly from Formosa (at the time a Japanese colony) to the Pihllipines and the US was sure there was a carrier involved. A real long flight be sure. I suspect it was a similar thing for the Army...not sure.

Sillius_Sodus
06-13-2006, 12:39 PM
Many Japanese pilots also found the chutes restricted their movement in the cockpit.

Sillius_Sodus

MiamiEagle
06-13-2006, 02:53 PM
Like everything in life not as simple as explain. I find that more Japanese JAAF pilot parachuted as the war when on than I supected.Do not believe everything that you read as the truth and the only truth. The reality may be totaly different. Nor was the Japanese pilots as inferior as official history tend us to believe. Their planes where not as inferior as I once believe as well. Always study history with a healthy level of skepticism. The truth is not always easy to optain.

The Pacific air war was tougher than we have officialy told. It was writen at a time when we Western needed to believe in our racial and cultural superiority over all other cultures and history was written to confort our minds to that set of mind. You have got to remember The official history of World war two was written during that era and most modern historian has followed that pattern since then. I have found very few that have study that era with a clear and fair open critical mind.

Miamieagle

VW-IceFire
06-13-2006, 03:22 PM
Very true MiamiEagle...but its still a good point to make that many Japanese pilots elected to remove their parachutes and remove their radios and instead relied on hand signals to achieve their objectives. They were very individual and personal warriors. This wasn't about inferiority or anything like that. They knew eactly what the tradeoffs were...they operated differently than the Americans and the British and everyone else they were facing down.

I believe alot of why the initial part of the war went as it did was because the Allies were totally bewildered that the Japanese had the kind of capability and daring that they showed they had. I have a great respect for their history.

Nimits
06-13-2006, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its because in the early phase of the war the Japanese didn't use parachutes. They just rode their plane down, as death is more honorable than jumping (supposedly). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not entirely true. As joeap pointed out, bomber crews often wore parachutes. American fighter pilots also occassionally saw crews of IJN shipborned aircraft (floatplanes, dive bombers, fighters, etc.) bail out. The differance was, where in the western air force few if any pilots of any aircraft would have realistically considered flying without a parachute, whereas in the Japanese Navy giving up the parachute (along with other "essential equipment," such as the radio) to extend range was considered tactically sound. Moreover, early- and mid-war IJ aircraft were much more vulnerable to explode than anything in the Western air forces, giving Japanese pilots fewer opportunities to successfully. And it is certainly, verifiably true that IJN pilots, when faced with going down with their plane or bailing out to be captured, almost invariably chose to ride their plane in (often trying to a take a handy Allied ship with them). However, with the exception of kamikazes and those units engaging in VRL missions, I do not believe any IJ pilots were officially ordered or "encouraged" to fly without parachutes.


One a related note, MiamiEagle I do take exception to your "history written by the winners" remark. I am not sure what histories you have been reading, but most popular history in America and Western Europe tends to exaly the IJN carrier aircraft crews far beyond their historical accomplishments. While they were undoubtedly excellent aviators, the historical fact is, in the first 6 months of the Pacific War (December 1941 though June 1942), the USN's F4F-3/-4 achieved a positive kill loss ratio! [This is not based solely on American pilot claims, but on comparing number of Zeros reported lost in the air by the IJN vs F4Fs reported lost against fighters by the USN; see Lundstrom's First Team series for a more detailed explanation]. Most of the IJN's and IJA's aerial successes were achieved against outnumbered opponents flying antiquited cast offs from the European War. From August 1942 on as the Allies managed to amass enough modern fighters to achieve rough numerical parity over crucial points (but before the IJN's experiance cadre was wiped out over the Solomons), the IJN's and IJA's kill/loss ratio dropped to roughly 1:1, hardly evidence of any superiorty of man or machine.

MiamiEagle
06-13-2006, 11:26 PM
Nimitz you are right the US pilots did fought quite well against the best Japanese can through at us with inferior planes. This is not about history written by the winner but to honor those who fought so hard in the Pacific Theater.

As for assertion that the the ratio of lost been 1:1 from August 1942 to 1943 has bearly been mention in any of the books that I have read and I have quite a few. You see the Pacific Theater facinates me as much as the the European Theater. They both where unlike popular believe very important Theaters.

Most books tend to make it look easy and thus degrading the achievement of our men and the allies pilots that fought against Japan.

For example do you realize that the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo was a failure if realy think about it. From a pure military point of view it a catastrophy. Brave and audacious it was but effective I believe not. It did have a great morale and political uplifting effect on the Nation but from a pure military angle it was a total failure. It cost the lives of thousands of Chinese lives due to Japanese atrocities for repraisers against them for helping the American Flyers but World war two historian have never bought this up with few exceptions.

Do you really believe that the Flying Tiger shoot down 290 Japanese planes during the Burma campaings. The Japanese never had that many planes at their deposal for the Invation of Burma. The Japanese simply ignore them and kept on Bombing the Allies throughout the campaign. This does not mean that the Fying tigers probably destroyed more than they lost but not nearly as many they claimed. Few historian have question this wild claims. This has only serve to hurt the legacy of our brave pilots in this Theaters. Who wants to read about pilots and their achievment when they where beating a whimpy enemy.

Do you know that they Raided Darwin more than fifty times. That the Zero fought well against the Spitfire V over Darwin. The Spitfire was the better plane in the long run but in 1942 it was not. Did you know that Japanese Airforce Bomb us more often then the Luftwaffe ever did. Did you know that half of Navy Ships that where sunk in Okinawa were sunk by conventional method and not by Kamikaze attacks.

Did you know that our naval air power where never able to stop one wave of attacking Kamekeze wave even doe we had superior number of planes and better quality of pilots. Does it not men you that perhaps the escorts where not as bad as we have portrate them to be.

Did you know the reason that it was so easy to Bomb Japan by our B29 in June and July 1945 was that the Japanese where holding back their Airforces so as not to fall the same trap as the German before D-Day a when they most of their best pilots months before the Invation.

I"m not writting this to honor the Japanese Airforce. Totaly the opposite, to honor our and our ally men that endure the hard climate and deseases plus a fanatical skilful enemy. They are the ones I want to honor.

Did you know over 500 B29 were lost over Japan during the war in over a few months while only 29 were lost over Korea in a span of three years.
Not all B29 were lost due enemy action but more where lost than in Korea. The Korea war was one heck of a war but thats another matter. My point is to show how dagerous the air against Japan really was.

Do you not realize why so many more Sims are dedicate to the Europen Theater while they are very few dedicate to the Pacific Theater. The reason is that in the mind many who do not understand what was it realy like to Fight in the Pacific Theater think that the real dangerous and important Theater was the European Theater. That is totally wrong. They where different but equaly dagerous in the Air as well as in the ground. Our men deserve to be better serve by our historian and for them to ask more questions and not take the facts given by official history as nothing but facts.


Miamieagle

HotelBushranger
06-14-2006, 04:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Great post mate. Good to see another person who appreciates Pacific Theatre history as much as me.

Also I'd like to expand on this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That the Zero fought well against the Spitfire V over Darwin. The Spitfire was the better plane in the long run but in 1942 it was not </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAAF received shipments of ex-RAF Spitfire MkVb's. These, all with engines 100+ hours, very of very poor quality. The Stokes filter on the front reduced the already slowler than usual speed, the Browning guns and the cannons jammed frequently, seemingly always at the opportune time for a shot, and the engines had pitch setting problems in which the engine would overrev and burst into flame, and the pitch couldn't actually be changed to prevent this. This was responsible for the destruction of more than one Spitfire.

And for the record, Darwin was bombed 92 times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Salute!

JG53Frankyboy
06-14-2006, 05:01 AM
the Zeros attacking Darwin in 1943 were Model 22 ones.
almost as fast as a Model 32 , but almost as manouverable as a Model 21 ! and it had the longest range of all Zeros.
unfortunatly it is missing in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


but yes, the most reputation the japanese fighters got was from the first 6 month of the pacific war....... when they fought HurricaneIIb, Buffalo Mk.I, Fulmar, P-400,P-35,P-36, P-40E.
but even later, a good japanese pilot could bring angloamerican pilots in trouble !

strewth
06-14-2006, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif And for the record, Darwin was bombed 92 times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Salute! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And also for the record, Townsville was bombed twice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

smokincrater
06-14-2006, 07:49 PM
AS far as I know most Japanese pilots had parachutes. Remember the seats on most fighters of the time were just steel seats. So sitting on some silk would be most comfortable!
What people dont know is the Royal Flying Corps and the early days of the Royal Air Force did not allow British and Commonwealth flyers to have parachutes. As General Trenchard put it "Such an apparatus might impair the fighting spirit of pilots and cause them to abandon machines which might otherwise be capable of returning to base for repair"
You have got remember at the time an infantry assualt might result in thousands of dead and wounded so what were a few more dead fly boys.
The Germans were using parachutes and the figures for bloody Apiril were telling 862 allied flyers dead compared to 47 German. Even Herman Goering had to use the "browley".So it just paints the picture of what was happening in the First World War.

Nimits
06-14-2006, 08:36 PM
Off topic but related: When the US entered the WWI, Eddie Rickenbacker (US Ace of Aces in WWI) tried to put together a flying squadron made up of race car drivers, motorcycle riders, and other similar types. The War Department rejected the proposal, reasoning that those familar with engines and mechanics might notice when an airplane was dangerously broken and decline to fly it . . .

Dtools4fools
06-15-2006, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That the Zero fought well against the Spitfire V over Darwin. The Spitfire was the better plane in the long run but in 1942 it was not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Io remember reading that when the Spits first arrived in the theater their pilots tended to turn with the Zeroes despites being warned not to do so.

After bad experiences they realized being able to turn (or even outturn) with enemey planes in Europe doesn't mean neccesarily that the same applys in the Far East.
Zoom and boom worked fine for the Spit afterwards.

****

smokincrater
06-15-2006, 11:09 AM
You`ve got remember the Zero had a much lower wing loading than the Spitfire. The Zero could outroll and out turn a Spitfire, But the Zero only had a 975hp engine which got it to about 330 mph where as the R and R Merlin with 1450 hp made the Spitfire faster in climb and speed.Which meant that the Spitfire could enter and leave combat at any time.
But the Spitfires poor endurance coupled with poor airfields meant that there was a lot of non-combat loses. I think One raid in particular the enemy was at 28,000 which would take a Spitfire V about six minutes to get to.Then I think Clive Caldwell instead of going straight into the fight got behind above(a wise option) and by the time they engaged the enemy they where miles from landfall and we lost most of them in that fight due to running out of fuel!
Also mentioned above Australian Mark V`s were well past there prime(interesting side note the Australian Goverment before the war was looking to trade Zeros for scrap metal,now that could have changed WWII)

JG53Frankyboy
06-15-2006, 01:21 PM
i doubt that a Spitfire Mk.Vc with Vokes dustfilter could outclimb a A6M3 Model 22.

Sintubin
06-15-2006, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its because in the early phase of the war the Japanese didn't use parachutes. They just rode their plane down, as death is more honorable than jumping (supposedly). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not entirely true. As joeap pointed out, bomber crews often wore parachutes. American fighter pilots also occassionally saw crews of IJN shipborned aircraft (floatplanes, dive bombers, fighters, etc.) bail out. The differance was, where in the western air force few if any pilots of any aircraft would have realistically considered flying without a parachute, whereas in the Japanese Navy giving up the parachute (along with other "essential equipment," such as the radio) to extend range was considered tactically sound. Moreover, early- and mid-war IJ aircraft were much more vulnerable to explode than anything in the Western air forces, giving Japanese pilots fewer opportunities to successfully. And it is certainly, verifiably true that IJN pilots, when faced with going down with their plane or bailing out to be captured, almost invariably chose to ride their plane in (often trying to a take a handy Allied ship with them). However, with the exception of kamikazes and those units engaging in VRL missions, I do not believe any IJ pilots were officially ordered or "encouraged" to fly without parachutes.


One a related note, MiamiEagle I do take exception to your "history written by the winners" remark. I am not sure what histories you have been reading, but most popular history in America and Western Europe tends to exaly the IJN carrier aircraft crews far beyond their historical accomplishments. While they were undoubtedly excellent aviators, the historical fact is, in the first 6 months of the Pacific War (December 1941 though June 1942), the USN's F4F-3/-4 achieved a positive kill loss ratio! [This is not based solely on American pilot claims, but on comparing number of Zeros reported lost in the air by the IJN vs F4Fs reported lost against fighters by the USN; see Lundstrom's First Team series for a more detailed explanation]. Most of the IJN's and IJA's aerial successes were achieved against outnumbered opponents flying antiquited cast offs from the European War. From August 1942 on as the Allies managed to amass enough modern fighters to achieve rough numerical parity over crucial points (but before the IJN's experiance cadre was wiped out over the Solomons), the IJN's and IJA's kill/loss ratio dropped to roughly 1:1, hardly evidence of any superiorty of man or machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL


HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA

US best tec lala same story

the thing is that japanese pilots where bether then any US ace in pacific

us has the advantage of numbers back then

and production

thats al

joeap
06-15-2006, 04:39 PM
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw.

smokincrater
06-15-2006, 06:16 PM
Reponse to JG53


Clive Caldwell through testing had the vokes filter removed.It was not needed in North Australia.If you log into any sites that show Australian Spitfire Vs most of them have tropical chin panels and the filters removed.
George Jones Commander of the RAAF was not impressed about Clive modifying Spitfires and summoned him to the Air Ministry in Melborne after he removed the two cannons and four machine guns and replaced them four fifties on his own aircraft.

Sintubin
06-16-2006, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view

Nimits
06-16-2006, 09:44 AM
It was a a WORLD WAR! Who was bloody neutral? Are you only planning to read history books written in Sweden? There is alot of good Pacific War research coming out of Scandinavia, I am sure . . .

joeap
06-16-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His book is very neutral, and the guy is a very respected author. He used German and Russian sources too BTW. Who is neutral? Mind giving me a few titles? Like maybe Eichmann's memoirs?

Idiot, I've studied history in Canada AND Europe and tried to be polite you are on the imbecile list with Sergio congrats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Edit: Changed my mind, Hayateace is funny often, Sergio takes himself seriously. Still looking for your list of "neutral" authours, the book I mentoned is recent as are most of the others I read generally.

Sillius_Sodus
06-16-2006, 12:57 PM
Sintubin,

Depending on when a book about WWII was written, there may be some bias to them. It also depends on what sources were used to research the book. In recent years there have been many books written by authors were were not alive during WWII. They tend not to have what you could call "traditional national views" regarding the war and with access to previously unavailable information, they paint a much better picture of what actually happened.

There are even some authors who have been around for a while such as Max Hastings, who lives outside London by the way, who are actually quite critical of their own side's conduct during the war. If you get the chance, read his latest book "Armageddon, The Battle for Germany".

I've read many books written soon after the war, and yes, many are quite biased in favour of the author's side, whether Allied or Axis. Even so, they should not be completely ignored since many modern authors have used them as research sources.

As for who's pilots were better, who really knows for sure? In his book "The Ace Factor", Mike Spick is of the view that whatever the air force, a certain percentage of pilots have what it takes to become aces. If you can afford lots of training, great, you'll have a larger pool of competent pilots but apparently the percentage of truly gifted pilots remains about the same no matter what or who.

The thing to remember is, if you don't think you're the best pilot in the business, you're in the wrong business... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

TC_Stele
06-16-2006, 01:01 PM
According to Sakai's book, Samurai, he explained that a lot of the Japanese pilots did not wear parachutes because it restricted their movement and ability to look around in the cockpit. Their superiors urged them to wear them, but Sakai and those he knew wouldn't wear them for that reason.

smokincrater
06-17-2006, 07:29 AM
Well no wonder they lost the WAR(and the soccer too)!

J_Anonymous
06-17-2006, 10:59 AM
Smokincrater, I have not forgotten your earlier claim that you didn't mean to "torment and abuse" any group of people.

As for soccer, Japan would be too selfish if they claim the world champ title in both baseball and soccer. I assume Australians would win the World Cup Soccer title, eh?

Dtools4fools
06-17-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most of the IJN's and IJA's aerial successes were achieved against outnumbered opponents flying antiquited cast offs from the European War. From August 1942 on as the Allies managed to amass enough modern fighters to achieve rough numerical parity over crucial points (but before the IJN's experiance cadre was wiped out over the Solomons), the IJN's and IJA's kill/loss ratio dropped to roughly 1:1, hardly evidence of any superiorty of man or machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


hhhmmm,
Saburo Sakai describes many fights where the Japanese fighters were less in numbers than the allieds.
True enough those early fights were against "antiquated" planes - Hurricanes in Malaya, Bwesters and P-36's over Indonesia,later on early P-39 - but then...
..how was it later on in the war?

Certainly the allieds had vast superior number of planes in late war and superior planes with the Japanese still flying more or less the same planes as at beginning of war which are the antiquated ones now...

****

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His book is very neutral, and the guy is a very respected author. He used German and Russian sources too BTW. Who is neutral? Mind giving me a few titles? Like maybe Eichmann's memoirs?

Idiot, I've studied history in Canada AND Europe and tried to be polite you are on the imbecile list with Sergio congrats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Edit: Changed my mind, Hayateace is funny often, Sergio takes himself seriously. Still looking for your list of "neutral" authours, the book I mentoned is recent as are most of the others I read generally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about

Robin cross
Christopher Ailsby
Will Fowler
BOYLE
Wolf Kielich
DR.L de jong
Drs.A.H Paape
J.zwaan
Julian Thompson

I live in Belgium you IDIOT
Now look on internet WHERE BELGIUM IS
Because you are to .. to now it
And try to fugure out wat happend there
I dont need propaganda to see how it was got it
Now i answer you in your language try to anwser me back in my language hm!!!

I bet you dont even now wat we speak here!

PS dont for to search the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sintubin
06-17-2006, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His book is very neutral, and the guy is a very respected author. He used German and Russian sources too BTW. Who is neutral? Mind giving me a few titles? Like maybe Eichmann's memoirs?

Idiot, I've studied history in Canada AND Europe and tried to be polite you are on the imbecile list with Sergio congrats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Edit: Changed my mind, Hayateace is funny often, Sergio takes himself seriously. Still looking for your list of "neutral" authours, the book I mentoned is recent as are most of the others I read generally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Europe you say ?!

Now wich shool )))
Wich country
Wich state
Wich local city
lets see who studie

leitmotiv
06-17-2006, 05:45 PM
Seeing the bodies piling up here I can't help but note I've never been prevented from bailing out in any of the Japanese aircraft. THE FIRST TEAM volumes were published by the United States Naval Institute and the author is American. He did a great deal of digging in Japanese sources. His conclusion was that, while the Japanese Navy fighter pilots were excellent, the USN fighter pilots had better tactics, and a superior fighting airplane---the F4F, and were excellent, as well. If anybody wants some information on the Japanese Navy and Army and the use of parachutes, I would suggest posting on the j-aircraft forums, and I am sure the bona fide experts who swim in those waters can deliver a great deal of worthwhile information free of impressionistic bickering and carping!

http://www.j-aircraft.com/

joeap
06-17-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counter Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His book is very neutral, and the guy is a very respected author. He used German and Russian sources too BTW. Who is neutral? Mind giving me a few titles? Like maybe Eichmann's memoirs?

Idiot, I've studied history in Canada AND Europe and tried to be polite you are on the imbecile list with Sergio congrats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Edit: Changed my mind, Hayateace is funny often, Sergio takes himself seriously. Still looking for your list of "neutral" authours, the book I mentoned is recent as are most of the others I read generally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Europe you say ?!

Now wich shool )))
Wich country
Wich state
Wich local city
lets see who studie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gen¨ve, une ville internationale en Suisse, vous parlez deux langues en Belgique n'est-ce pas? Flemish and French. I did a Masters in Carelton U in Ottawa and a DES (Diplome) in the Hautes Etudes Internationales of the University of Geneva. Plus I am of Greek origin, I know where Belgium is, and know some of its history. I'll bet you are Flemish since you mentioned Dutch and Flemish authors? So mate, where did you go to school?

So what is your problem, of the big list you gave me, (read some of Alisby a while ago) at least 4 are english so what are you complaining about my source for? What makes them neutral? What makes Dutch and Flemish authors "neutral"? I don't say they are not excellent, just want to know.

I did not start this I was polite when I reacted to your diatribe against Nimits.

J_Anonymous
06-17-2006, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Seeing the bodies piling up here .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mayday, Mayday, I am bailing out now, too. But wait, before doing that.... folks, there is no such thing as "neutral history (book)", as far as I know. Historians have their own agenda when they write a book. I can tell you this with certainty, because my partner is one of those and I know a large number of those supposedly "neutral " historians. Especially modern and war history books, probably every one of them is not "neutral" by any means. If you read books written by authors of both sides of the conflict and take average, that may be close to the reality, I would guess. All those serious looking history professors, when they drink beer and wine and open up their mind with dips and manches, they are all just.... oops, my parachute is opening, see you all....

leitmotiv
06-17-2006, 08:30 PM
Amen, J_Anonymous. I did graduate work in history and, absolutely, the profession is rampant with agendas, prejudice, and even fraud. There are honest historians who do their best, and you can't ask more. Lundstrom of THE FIRST TEAM is about as good as they come. He isn't brilliant, but he did his homework. I'd contest that the USN fighter pilots and Japanese fighter pilots were the only fighter pilots who used high side attacks, as he claims---German 109 and 110 pilots made them against Wellingtons in Dec 1939. I think he hero-worships the USN pilots, but most historians consciously or unconsciously become advocates for their chosen subjects---occupational hazard.

smokincrater
06-17-2006, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J_Anonymous:
Smokincrater, I have not forgotten your earlier claim that you didn't mean to "torment and abuse" any group of people.

As for soccer, Japan would be too selfish if they claim the world champ title in both baseball and soccer. I assume Australians would win the World Cup Soccer title, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Come on its only a soccer match if you get upset about good natured ribbing,then theres not much I can do for you.
If you think thats bad you should see a test match between Australia and England.
Besides If Japan win in the furture I fully expect you to tell me about it!
I am not out to get you J just having a little fun. And I will not get into anything more about respect etc that has been dealt with.

But surpise,surpise I agree with you,most Japanese pilots did wear parachutes and did use them when the occasion called for it.

J_Anonymous
06-17-2006, 10:16 PM
No, I am not upset, and I already bailed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I am sure that game was such an excitement down in the south! 3 goals in 10 minutes is marvelous, although I didn't watch the match and I know only thru internet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Soccer was such a minor sport in Japan until 90's, hence I can't care less. If Cuba defeated Japanese baseball team in the final of WBC, I would be still mad. (I hope I am not offending folks from Cuba, forgive me if I am...)

Nimits
06-17-2006, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Certainly the allieds had vast superior number of planes in late war and superior planes with the Japanese still flying more or less the same planes as at beginning of war which are the antiquated ones now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, which is why I was talking about the period from December, 1941 throught January 1943. The USN (and USMC) were using exclusively F4F-3s and F4F-4s against mostly A6M2s and A6M3s. These were modern types, contemporaries of the Wildcat, and on paper superior to the F4F in most categories, and the Allies and Japanese had rough numerical parity in this period. Even so, the USN came off even or better in most engagements against IJN Zeros and bombers. Obviously, the only conclusion is that IJN never possess a marked qualatative superiority over USN or USMC pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd contest that the USN fighter pilots and Japanese fighter pilots were the only fighter pilots who used high side attacks, as he claims---German 109 and 110 pilots made them against Wellingtons in Dec 1939. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to defend Lundstrom (as if he needs my help), he did not claim that no other airforce used side and overhead runs (and therefore deflection shooting), only that the IJN, USMC, and especially the USN were the only air forces specialized in them as a whole. Individual pilots (such as Marseille) and units may have used deflection tactics with varying degrees of success, but nobody besides the IJN and USN trained in them as extensively, and certainly no one used them more effectively than the USN.

J_Anonymous
06-17-2006, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
.... and the Allies and Japanese had rough numerical parity in this period. Even so, the USN came off even or better in most engagements against IJN Zeros and bombers. Obviously, the only conclusion is that IJN never possess a marked qualatative superiority over USN or USMC pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect... I am no expert in these things, but I am just curious to know.

When you (seem to) quote the numerical number and say

"even or better in most engagements against IJN Zeros and bombers"

(a) How do you (or your source) count the kills? How about "F4F vs. Zeros only" instead of "F4F vs. Zeros AND BOMBERS"? It's a subtle distinction that could make a big difference in conclusion. Is it "even or better" when you (or your source) exclude IJN bombers?

(b) Many IJN raids were conducted with long flight, thanks to the unusually long range of Zero's. I suspect that the stat you quotes includes ALL the documented loss of Zero's which may may have been needless loss because the engagement was made at too far distance for return to base/carrier even with a tiny pin hole in gas tank or minor engine malfunction, and also because IJN pilots tended to commit suicide attck when they figured they can't fly back to their base/carrier safely.

When historians go thru the documented loss after the WW2, even if the actual count of the loss of the airplanes is correct, there is always a room for interpretation. THAT IS WHAT HISTORIANS DO (ask my wife....).

In this particular case, how could your historian possibly distinguish (1) real cobmat loss of Zero's in ordinary sense (ordinary kills), vs. (2) IJN's peculiar way of losses (distance, one-hole-in-tank-already-a-loss because he could not fly back, suicide, lack of parachute belts etc.) which would beef up the stats of USN kills when historian counts the number based on documents. Besides, your historian's count seems to include bombers such as D3 and B5.

I am not disputing that USN/USMC had great training and pilots. I've lived in the states for years and know that the US is very good at methodical way of running a business. However, I am not one of those who read somebody else's research and accept his/her conclusion at its face value, without questioning it --- I know that there is always a different way of interpretation for statistics etc. and seemingly straightforward, objective facts may be more subtle than they appear (otherwise my partner can't make money out of history). Again, with all due respect for your knowledge....

Nimits
06-18-2006, 12:24 AM
My main sources are are John Lundstrom and Erig Bergerud, and, since Lundstrom's First Team series is more detailed in describing Navy air to air encounters, I will cite from him.

From August 7 to 15 November 1942 (including the carrier battles of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz), VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 (the USN fighter squadrons which saw action in the period) shot down an estimated 102 IJN aircraft (29 fighters and float fighters, 59 bombers, and 13 floatplanes) and lost 108 F4Fs to all causes (including several dozen lost when the Hornet and Wasp were sunk). In fighter vs. figher combat, 31 F4Fs were lost vs. 25 A6Ms. However, after an inital disaster on 7 August, when poor fighter direction caused 9 F4Fs to be lost against only 2 A6Ms, the loss ratio was 22 F4Fs vs 23 A6Ms. In the 2 carrier battles prior to the Guadalcanal landing, fight combat resulted in 10 F4Fs wkilled in exchange for 15 A6Ms.

Lundstrom used a combination of Japanese and American sources to reconstruct each individual air combat in the greatest detail possible, though obviously the imperfect surviving records kept by the Japanese and the fact that aircraft often tended to simply dissappear in the wide expanses of the Pacific make that job somewhat more difficult (thus why some of the above numbers of IJN loses are only estimates). Adhering to the custom and standard of most historian and military alike, he tallies those aircraft as killed which are rendered permenantly unservicable directly (shot down in the combat area) or indirectly (badly damaged and forced to ditch at sea or crash on land) by the action of opposing aircarft. His final numbers do not distinguish between those aircraft that were immediately destroyed (what you call "ordinary kills" and those that were destroyed a few a minutes are hours later due to damage recieved in combat.

The fact that the IJN was forced to fly extremely long distances and emphasized the offensive to the extreme certainly contributed to Japan's defeat in the air over the Solomons. However, I there is no scholarly precedent I know of for not counting a kill because the aircraft in question had a longer flight home or a more suicidal pilot than his opponent. Every situation has its tactical and operational peculiarities, and if one were to do that, than one would have to start discounting USMC and USN aircraft that were lost because of faulty maintainance due to lack of parts or because pilots sleep-depreived the night before because they were shelled by IJN cruisers, obviously an impossible task. Anyway, the air force on the offensive generally has more trouble recovering damaged aircraft. Though fighting over much shorter ranges (and in much greater numbers), the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain had similar trouble in damaged aircraft not making it home across the Channel as the IJN did over the Solomons, yet I have never heard anyone argue that Luftwaffe's losses vis a vis the RAF should be reduced. An aircraft destoyed due to enemy aerial action is a kill, no matter what the peculiar circumstances.

P.S. Plus, the IJN did not achieve a significantly better kill ratio in the carrier battles of 1942 (when ranges were inherently even) or when they started staging fighters out of bases farther southeast down the Solomons.

J_Anonymous
06-18-2006, 12:49 AM
Thank you for your detailed explanation. Very interesting. Most carrier based Zero pilots did not survive the war after Midway, and hence not much is known about their story. Anyways, my recollection is that the A6's were manufactured more than 10,000 units. So this "statistical analysis" accounts for only tiny fraction of all Zero's lost over Pacific, hence it is certainly a very thin "slice" out of a big picture, I must point out. Nonetheless, in these 3 months, certainly they seem to be evenly matched, 41 aircombat loss of F4F all in all vs 40 loss of Zero, as far as the number of lost units was concerned. Is it known how many F4F engaged in how many Zero's during each combat? Did 40 Wildcats intercepted 10 Zero escorts, or was it more like 10 vs 10 typically? That info would address the issue of "numerical superiority" comments by some others, and without that info we can't even judge the skills and the quality of equipment I would say. Again, thanks for sharing the interesting info.

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 01:07 AM
It was the extremely difficult high side attack which Lundstrom believes only the USN and IJNAF were trained to execute, not deflection shooting in general, Nimits. There is no doubt the USN used it to great effect, but I was intrigued to see in accounts of the 17 Dec 1939 Wellington bomber massacre that the German fighter pilots apparently high sided the Wellingtons to avoid their nose, tail, and ventral turrets. Could be they did it "naturally" as dictated by the circumstances.

Dtools4fools
06-18-2006, 05:12 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> From August 7 to 15 November 1942 (including the carrier battles of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz), VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 (the USN fighter squadrons which saw action in the period) shot down an estimated 102 IJN aircraft (29 fighters and float fighters, 59 bombers, and 13 floatplanes) and lost 108 F4Fs to all causes (including several dozen lost when the Hornet and Wasp were sunk). </pre>

While it is losses of F4F of ALL causes, which certainly ups the number, why at the same moment you count only F4F's but no other losses during this period (as you do at japanese side...)?

And why has it to be USN and USMC only, they weren't the only ones fighting, no?
****

joeap
06-18-2006, 05:30 AM
Agree with Leitmotiv, J-Anonymous and Nimits here. What I reject is that you can say becuase of a historian's nationality, you can say they will have for sure X bias. I reacted if you read my posts to our Belgian friend's rejection of Overy cause he is a Brit and came back with a list of "neutral" historians soem fo whom wre Brit too, so clearly nationality is not the only factor.

As I indicated I too have done Graduate history and have seen and read "good" and "bad" historians. I knew one Balkan "historian" who spoke no language from that region. Read a lot of different views, check out what sources they use and how they use them in their writing. One small point by a historian I really respect, even the use of elipses ie. ... when primary sources are quoted can tell you something if you go back and check what was cut out.

Now getting back to this issue, we have primary sources that are inherently biased as well claims vs. losses. That's why we have to do a lot of work, compare notes, challenge politley liek J_Anonymous, leitmotiv and Dtools4fools do with Nimits, NOT rudely.

MiamiEagle
06-18-2006, 07:57 AM
I"am impress with the level of knowledge of the members of this forum. You guys demostrate a great deal if interest in a facinating diversity of subjects related to World war two aviation and I"am proud to be member of this forum.

As for World war two records on the Pacific air war to my surprise they are very scatchy and unreliable.

Very few have cared to compare and study to enemy records to verify it against ours.

Let me tell this that has disturb me for years and made me realize that not all that we where told about the Pacific air war was not as accurate was when I found out many years ago that much of the Fith Airforce record where lost during the war. Another was the bad habbit of getting small incomplete records and and that Airforce historian make up the missing parts to complete them. Now that disturbing to me.

You have got to remember that the Japanese where called monkey and non Human and any thing they did was not suppose to be better than ours.

You also have got to remember that at that time we believe everything that Goverment told us and the public believe it as the absolute truth.

The facts are the our pilots fought well agaist a very talented enemy from the begining.

The facts are we out smarted them and out fought them through our collective skill and courage but the untold truth is the it was a lot harder and not as one sided as we have been told through convetional history.

In the end we won because we where better but not in the way where told. It took many sacryfices and a lot of brave men lives where lost to acomplish our victory in the Pacific.

They where not the whips we have been told through out all this years. Sure some time we shot them down ten to one but many as times as we have lead been to believe.

Did you guys know the fighter the Japanese use to invade South East Asia was the Ki27 and not the Ki43. They where simply to few Ki43 available for the invation.

So the plane that drove the the Hurricanes and the other ally planes from the skies form the Area was the Ki27 and not the Ki43.

No aviation historian has ever brought that fact out. I guess to safe the honor of their country men.If you are a true historian you do not take sides or try to down play the accomplishment of one over the other. You have to be as objective as Humanly as possible.This way you will honor the men involved better.

Just read this historical post and you will see in just one example what I mean.

http://historynet.com/wwii/blrabaul/index.html

Miamieagle

JG53Frankyboy
06-18-2006, 08:09 AM
read Buffalos/Hurricanes over Singapore.

there the commenwealth pilots very often claimed to fought agaisnt Zeros ! but at the most times they fought Ki-43 of the 59. and 64. Sentai - they just called every japanese fighter they met with no fixed gear (that they called the Typ 97 fighter = Ki-27) Zero.
so not les of the Zeros eraly war reputation came from the Ki-43 actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
the two Sentais were very busy in this months http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and actually the 3.Hikoshidan had "only" 4 fighter Sentais - the 1. &. 11. Sentai still flew Ki-27 "Abduls" .

slipBall
06-18-2006, 08:32 AM
In the mid to late 30's an American aircraft prototype was imported to Japan. I can't remember the specific's as to design, or the builder. The zero was developed copying the technology of that American import. I will update this when I research more details. The zero was very light, no armour at all, very agile, that was the reason for its early successes. Pilots perfered to take no chute, also perfering hand signals for communicating

edit
The imported prototype was the Vought V143


I should have said that I don't know as fact that the Zero was based on the US prototype. I only know that there was great speculations of this by aviation experts. Probably some design aspects of aircraft such as the Vought V-143, Hughes H1 Racer, and others was considered in early zero design. As MiamiEagle points out, I would agree with him

JG53Frankyboy
06-18-2006, 08:46 AM
and the P-51 was a german construction, the Ju88 an amreican and the Ki-61 was actualy a Heinkel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

come on.........................

and the most planes in WW2 used a US technology propeller , didnt they ?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slipBall
06-18-2006, 08:48 AM
Now would I lie to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

J_Anonymous
06-18-2006, 09:23 AM
You must be kidding, SlipBall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif. Read a book published in 50's detailing the design and development of Zero written by the chief designer himself, Mr. Jiro Horikoshi of Mitsubishi. You will be surprised.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I don't remember the title, but my understanding is that some chapters were translated and published in English by publishers in England. (I posted about it here some time ago). Examples; some folks ridicule the light-weight Zero as "a paper plane." Far from the truth. Sumitomo (a huge mining corporation still today)developed light-weight aluminum alloys. Japanese technologies in metallurgy was quite decent even in the 30's. If you are in R&D related to metals and some materials, you find seminal breakthrough research works carried out by the Japanese researchers before 1940's, a backbone in the development of Zero. Another example: To reduce the air drag, they developed a new way of attaching metal panels to the frame using flat-top rivet (&lt;-- spell?), etc. I read somewhere the technology was imitated by the US but don't remember the details. I guess Japanese major weakness was engine design, and in that department Japanese engineers never caught up with the Allied engineering, which is a part of the reason why it took so long for IJN to come up with the next generation fighter planes (J2M, N1K etc.) after Zero.

Speaking of N1K2 "Shiden-kai", which will soon become flyable in the Manchuria add-on, it was designed by very young engineers and a small company in Kyushu. Mr. Horikoshi Himself was younger than 30 years old when he designed Zero, I think. One key fact to be noted is that airplane technology itself was very young. Like the young guys in the silicon valley who transformed the information technologies over the last few decades, there was a plenty of room for new comers to make a big leap in the aircraft engineering between WW1 and WW2.

My recollection is that P-51 was also developed in literally just over several months by young guys of an unknown company, right?

Dtools4fools
06-18-2006, 09:34 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> type97=ki-27 </pre>

From a guy flying a Buffalo defending Burma:

RAF 67 Squadron was the vanguard that noon. It wasn't a happy experience: "We met 35 or 37 [fighters] and a big mob of bombers," Bargh recalls. "I had a fighter about two feet behind me all the time.... I had no armor plating, so I could see him easily. He was in a fixed undercarriage, what we called a Type 97 fighter. One [bullet] got by my ear. At that point I realized I couldn't turn with him any longer. I spiralled down and I came up again...and there was another mob of bombers."

He tried to turn with the Ki-27!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
There obviously were some mistakes made...

This is why I dislike the due to "superiority of planes and bigger numbers" kind of comments...
To me this kind of downplays the Japanese achiebvements and sweeps Allied mistakes under the carpet...

I wonder if someone has an accurate list with numbers of planes and types and where they were used early war?
****

MiamiEagle
06-18-2006, 10:15 AM
Gentelman like every thing in history there is no simple answer to your question. The Japanese did learn from the Germans and Americans about aviation technology. They also learn to build their Navy from the British Royal Navy.

What most people do not realize is that all Nations learn from each other otherwise progress will developeped very slowly and Civilization will stagnate.

This does not mean that the Zero or the INJ where copies from the German and American Airforce or British Royal Navies. Other wise the Zero would not been able to acomplish what they did with the ranges they had to cope with and the tatics they use.

They had to deal with greater distances than any European Airforce ever had to deal with. How they did this at that time was a great achievement.

Sure they had get rid of the radio and any equipment that would create weight and would make their planes consume more gasoline and thus make their planes less useful in their missions in this Theater.

The ranges they achieve in the early part of the war was nothing less than extra ordinary. Something the German and the British where never able to resolve.

Had Bf109 had greater range they might have won the Battle of Britain and had the British done the same with the Spitfire there would not have the a need to build the P51 for long range escort at the end of the war and maybe the war would ended six month earlier in Europe.

You see just because a country initialy learn a technology from one country it does that mean everything they develpoed after that is base on that technology alone.

As you may have notice that the Zero was totaly different from a Spitfire and Bf109 and P40 in looks and capabilities.

The tatics they used where different as well. Their Navy was train different as well. They had the very first Modern Navy in the World for a brief priod in history.

The Allies especially the Americans cought on quickly after Pearl Harbor. As a matter of fact Pearl Harbor was a blessing in diguise for the American Navy. It force us to change our tatic to a more modern one by forcing us to use out carriers itstead of our Battleships as the main our strike force.

Yes one of the many Japanese weakness was their inability to build powerful engines for their war planes. Just as it was a Germasn weakness to build a well rounded airframe. Luckly for us they where never to combine their technolgies and build a super fighter base on their respective strenghth.


Miamieagle

slipBall
06-18-2006, 11:05 AM
Hughes H1 Racer 1935
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/abr3d-dx.jpg

There are some simulateries



"The Hughes H-1 was designed for record-setting purposes, but it also had an impact on the design of high-performance aircraft for years to come... The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-WuIf FW 190. It demonstrated that properly designed radial-engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs despite having larger frontal areas because of their radial engine installations." National Air and Space Museum H-1 Racer
"This airplane (the H-1), nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters: the Republic P-47, Mitsubishi Zero and Focke-Wulf 190." Curtiss Wright Corporation History
Jim Wright (who built the replica of the H-1): Wright was intrigued by the H-1 for a variety of reasons. One was the technological aspect of the H-1. It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time. The H-1 had a major impact on aircraft development, and likely influenced such notable aircraft as the P-47, the Zero, and the Focke-Wolfe Fw-190. AVweb

Nimits
06-18-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So this "statistical analysis" accounts for only tiny fraction of all Zero's lost over Pacific, hence it is certainly a very thin "slice" out of a big picture, I must point out. Nonetheless, in these 3 months, certainly they seem to be evenly matched, 41 aircombat loss of F4F all in all vs 40 loss of Zero, as far as the number of lost units was concerned. Is it known how many F4F engaged in how many Zero's during each combat? Did 40 Wildcats intercepted 10 Zero escorts, or was it more like 10 vs 10 typically? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lundstrom's research accounts for all air combat engaged in by USN fighter squadrons from December, 1941 through November, 1942. Whatever the total production of the Zero and/or the Wildcat, the number of fighters available on carriers or front line fighter bases in the South Pacific was relatively small. The USN had around 100 to cover the Guadalcanal landings (though since they had to provide simultaneous CAP for the invasion and the carrier force, the number of aircraft availabe to meet an IJN strike was much lower), but in most battles the number of available fighters ranged ranged between 30 and 80 per side. The combats described to, in fact, included a sizeable portion of the total F4F engagements in the first year of the war and all USN F4F engagements.

The relative number of F4Fs and Zeros engaged in an various air battles could fluctate wildly. The nature of escort missions generally ensured that the attacking side was outnumbered (though, when the USN Coral sea, the IJN Zeros acheived slight numerical fighter superiority over both home task force and the American force, 16-15 and 18-16, respectively). For example, at the time of VT-3's attack on Kido Butai on 4 June, VF-5 had only 6 F4Fs, while there evidently about 39 Zeros airborne over the fleet, and as many as 15 to 20 of which engaged VF-5. In that combat, 1 F4F was lost in exchange for (probably) 4 Zeros. There were some lopsided combats on boths sides, and there was no "standard" size air combat in the carrier battles. Prior to August 1942, the USN generally had slightly fewer fighters in an engagement than the IJN, but overall scored slight better. Starting in August, the USN and USMC generally had more fighters available than the IJN, but scored slightly worse agaisnt the Zeros, so go figure. Over Guadalcanal, the IJN woudl generally send 12-18 fighters (plus bombers or recon planes) against a defensive force that could be anywhere between 10 and 50 planes strong. The point is, counting carrier and land based air, neither naval air force at any point in the first twelve months had an overwhelming superiority in numbers or quality of men and equipment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So this "statistical analysis" accounts for only tiny fraction of all Zero's lost over Pacific, hence it is certainly a very thin "slice" out of a big picture, I must point out. Nonetheless, in these 3 months, certainly they seem to be evenly matched, 41 aircombat loss of F4F all in all vs 40 loss of Zero, as far as the number of lost units was concerned. Is it known how many F4F engaged in how many Zero's during each combat? Did 40 Wildcats intercepted 10 Zero escorts, or was it more like 10 vs 10 typically? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While it is losses of F4F of ALL causes, which certainly ups the number, why at the same moment you count only F4F's but no other losses during this period (as you do at japanese side...)?

And why has it to be USN and USMC only, they weren't the only ones fighting, no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because there is no dispute that that USAAF, despite having a marginally better aircraft in the P-40, at the beginning of the war generally performed less effectively than the USN pilots (similar to the qualtative disparity between the IJA and IJN squdrons). And because USMC and USN F4Fs did the majority of "Zero Fighting" in the first year of the war. And because, frankly, there is nothing equalling the quality of Lundstrom's First Team series covering the USAAF in the South Pacific during that time period.

slipBall
06-18-2006, 11:46 AM
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/a_1068_21_o.jpg



"The V-143 was a rework of the V-141. It was a single-seat landplane fighter featuring a low-wing and all-metal monocoque structure with retractable landing gear and wing flaps. It also had cowl flaps for controlling engine cooling. It was capable of flying 250 mph at altitude. It was eventually sold to Japan. This aircraft is believed to have been the prototype for the Japanese €œZero€ fighter of World War II."

Again let me say, that aviation experts find a connection. It's just human nature to learn from others

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Christopher Shores' two volume BLOODY SHAMBLES, Brian Cull's HURRICANES OVER SINGAPORE and BUFFALOES OVER SINGAPORE, Hata/Izawa/Shores' JAPANESE ARMY AIRFORCE FIGHTER UNITS AND THEIR ACES 1931-1945, Kelly's memoir HURRICANE OVER THE JUNGLE, Bartsch's DECEMBER 8, 1941 and DOOMED AT THE START, Ford's FLYING TIGERS and Sakai's memoir SAMURAI taken together provide a comprehensive anatomy of the air fighting in the Philippines, Malaya, Burma, Dutch East Indies, and New Guinea---all recent scholarship. Of course there is an enormous literature in Japanese which never gets translated into English, unfortunately. The Shores, Cull, and Hata & co. books have excellent Japanese information. Shores and Cull examine in minute detail tactics and daily air battles.

Nimits
06-18-2006, 12:23 PM
Bartsch books are excellent, but do not cover the South Pacific after outside of the Philippines. The tragedy of the Far East Air Force is not really indicative of anything other than what happens when you leave your fighters on the ground while the other guy has them in the air. The FEAF was mostly destroyed before a majority of its planes or pilots even had a chance to go into action.

I have Shores first book of his trilogy and have skimmed through parts, but I have not had a chance to read it yet. The others I have not had a chance to pick up yet. However, none, except for Bloody Shambles, could do more than touch on the New Guinea air war (the IJA did not show up until December, 1942), and I doubt any of them have done for the USAAF and RAAF in the New Guinea in 1942 what Lundstrom did for the USN. That is excepting, of course, Sakai's book. But Sakai can only write about what happened to him. Besides, all pilots habitually overclaim kills and the IJN was notorious (from the view of hindsight) in this regard. I would wager a third to half of Sakai's "kills" survived, and the first hand account is of limited utility in trying to understand the result of indivdual air combats.

J_Anonymous
06-18-2006, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/a_1068_21_o.jpg



"The V-143 was a rework of the V-141. It was a single-seat landplane fighter featuring a low-wing and all-metal monocoque structure with retractable landing gear and wing flaps. It also had cowl flaps for controlling engine cooling. It was capable of flying 250 mph at altitude. It was eventually sold to Japan. This aircraft is believed to have been the prototype for the Japanese €œZero€ fighter of World War II."

Again let me say, that aviation experts find a connection. It's just human nature to learn from others </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am sorry but I don't think your posts merit a serious reply. I think the very same photo is shown in the book of Mr. Horikoshi, too (the chief designer of Zero" --- I could be wrong, maybe I saw the photo in Sakai's book). Do you think he would do that if he really imitated it? I am sure he as well as aircraft designers of all countries studied EVERYTHING about all other airplanes in various countries. Today, I am sure Big 3's as well as Toyota and VW buy cars manufactured by the competitors, and probably some "experts" would see "a conneciton." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You see, this is exactly the kind of issue we are talking about above, in the context of so-called "neutral" historians' so-called "objective" analysis based on "subjective adoptation of data". Sure, "some" experts of *a* country *might* see "a connection" for EVERYTHING (because of whatever the agenda he harbors). Are you aware of a huge leap in your logic, sir?

You may also want to look into the Japanese efforts before 1941 on setting aviation records, such as "Koukenki" and "Kamikaze-go". Again, you will be surprised if you do a serious and truly unbiased research.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 12:41 PM
There is more to an airplane than its external appearance, slipBall. Horikoshi's history of his Zero design and the foremost English-language expert on Japanese aircraft, Robert Mikesh, in his several Zero histories make clear the debt to the U.S. aero industry in the Zero design, which is considerable, but there were several unique features which made the Zero extraordinary and deeply flawed all at once. The Japanese in their effort to reduce weight to the barest minimum developed an ultra-light metal to skin the Zero which was in advance of anything used in the West until after the war. Because the Navy fighter pilots insisted on extreme maneuverability (which Horikoshi thought was a huge error---his optimum fighter would have been in the U.S. mold: big, very powerful, well-protected, and very fast---his solution delayed over and over by the authorities was the big Reppu which was huge like the P-47 but very maneuverable), Horikoshi had to make the Zero as light as possible, lighter than any U.S. fighter. Thus, there were lightening holes everywhere in the frames. The other thing, he had to make do with an engine with far less horsepower than what was going into the latest Western fighters which had, at the least, 1000 HP engines and all the way up to 2000 HP in the latest 1941 prototypes like the P-47 and Corsair. Add to extreme maneuverability he had to give the Zero extreme range for operations over China and from land bases in the Pacific, and he had to fit heavy armament. The Zero was absolutely unique. It was ultra-light beyond Western practice, a single-engine ultra-long-range aircraft when such designs were rejected in the West (the Spitfire could have had extra tanks for range comparable to the Mustang but this was rejected by the head of the RAF, Portal around 1942), extremely maneuverable when such capability was going by the wayside in the West, and completely unprotected by armor or self-sealing fuel tanks. Only the Japanese Army rejected the high maneuverability formula and sponsored Nakajima's Ki-44 as an alternative to the lightweight Ki-43. It was built to be a classic interceptor with great power. Thus, the Zero was unique. It would never have been taken seriously by Western air arms because it had sacrificed speed and protection for its great hat tricks long range and maneuverability. The Navy forced Horikoshi to design their new bomber, the G4M "Betty" with no armor and to be ultra-light so that a twin engine aircraft would have the range and performance of a four engine bomber. Horikoshi warned this was suicidal, and he was right---the G4M was a disaster. The Japanese were brilliant at adapting modern methods to produce aircraft to their exotic requirements. The designers were brilliant, the users were definitely unwise in their requirements.

slipBall
06-18-2006, 12:55 PM
Maybe we should start a thread to disguse this topic, I did'nt mean to hijack this one. Below is a quote from Howard Hughes



Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here. That is the only relationship between the Japanese Zero and the Hughes H-I design. I had no dealings with the Japanese or any other foreign government for the plane and to the best of everyone's knowledge the Japanese had no other access to it except through whatever espionage they may have had or through seeing photographs of it which naturally were published all over the world.

Bill Utley: (attending the meeting as the Hughes company publicist, recounts how before the war a delegation of Japanese air force generals had seen the H-1 in a hangar in New Jersey) "They were late for a banquet in New York where they were being toasted and they saw your airplane and I have been told by Al Ludwick I think, that they couldn't drag them away from it, that they climbed all over it, that they examined it from head to toe, and that was the start of their interest in your airplane"

Hughes: Oh, really?

Utley: Yeah.

Hughes: Well, I don't think we better bring that in because there might be some question as to why the hell they were let in the hangar.

Utley: They had been invited here by the United States Government

Hughes: I know, but you can't explain all those things without going into too much detail

. . . There were photographs all over the place and I don't think the Japanese would have to see it to copy it - they could copy it from the pictures.

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 01:23 PM
Without a doubt the Hughes racers were the very models of the last 100 yards of the propellor-driven single-engine fighter race---powerful, fast, smooth skin, wide-track undercarriage, constant-speed prop---you can trace the geneaology of everything from the Fw 190 to the Tempest to the P-47 to every WWII fighter design except the ultra lights like the 109 and Zero. The Zero borrowed the skinning, wide-track undercarriage (as I recall Horikoshi attributed the undercarriage mechanism to Northrop), the prop, but betrayed the brilliant Hughes design philosophy by using a small engine which made it slower than the latest Allied fighter designs (since the Wildcat was a cobbled together transition design---the lucky Zero pilots were not faced by beasts-at-sea like the Hellcat and Corsair until late 1943). The essence of the Hughes philosophy was to use every modern device to make his racer the ultimate high performance design prototype. It was the grand daddy of the maximum solutions. The Zero was a strange attempt to make an ultra-modern fighter into a Sopwith Camel. Without a doubt the Zero benefitted from the Allied order of battle. The English sent less-than-brilliant stuff to the Far East---the Buffalo and the Hurricane IIB. The U.S. had the P-39 and P-40 which were hard-hitting interim designs. When the maximum solution aircraft started arriving in theater in the fall of 1942 and early 1943, the P-38 and Corsair, it was all over for the light Japanese jobs.

J_Anonymous
06-18-2006, 01:29 PM
SlipBall, so....???

You are quoting the gentleman known for his excentric behavior, and he is not even trying to pretend he s unbiased, neutral, and objective. As far as I can tell, he is just trying to grab whatever credits he can gain from unsuspecting people with one-sided misinformation.

Again, as I and some other folks already pointed above, what one needs to do is to examine ALL objective facts and analyze them OBJECTIVELY. Quoting one sided so-called "evidence" would not get you anywhere, I am afraid.

Sintubin
06-18-2006, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Sintubin you're just as narrowminded as the "rah rah" Americans you attack...got proof to counterAlisb Nimits' claims? books? Authors? Of course Japan had good pilots...but they made mistakes. Especially the high command. The worst is they in fact did not plane for a long war of attrition. Japan had very very tough pilot training programmes, but too harsh, pilots who were guilty of some discipline or like offense were washed out. Even if they were good. Plus it took way too long.

Enough of this Axis "lost just because of numbers" garbage. I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won WWII" by Richard Overy to understand the complexity of the issues involved.

Don't yell btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its no GARBAGE + i wont read books from a autor WHO see things in a ENGLISH point of view and who works in london

I read books from NEUTRAL point of view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His book is very neutral, and the guy is a very respected author. He used German and Russian sources too BTW. Who is neutral? Mind giving me a few titles? Like maybe Eichmann's memoirs?

Idiot, I've studied history in Canada AND Europe and tried to be polite you are on the imbecile list with Sergio congrats. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Edit: Changed my mind, Hayateace is funny often, Sergio takes himself seriously. Still looking for your list of "neutral" authours, the book I mentoned is recent as are most of the others I read generally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Europe you say ?!

Now wich shool )))
Wich country
Wich state
Wich local city
lets see who studie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gen¨ve, une ville internationale en Suisse, vous parlez deux langues en Belgique n'est-ce pas? Flemish and French. I did a Masters in Carelton U in Ottawa and a DES (Diplome) in the Hautes Etudes Internationales of the University of Geneva. Plus I am of Greek origin, I know where Belgium is, and know some of its history. I'll bet you are Flemish since you mentioned Dutch and Flemish authors? So mate, where did you go to school?

So what is your problem, of the big list you gave me, (read some of y a while ago) at least 4 are english so what are you complaining about my source for? What makes them neutral? What makes Dutch and Flemish authors "neutral"? I don't say they are not excellent, just want to know.

I did not start this I was polite when I reacted to your diatribe against Nimits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vous dites deux fois le mªme Gen¨ve, internationale de ville d'une et dans les études Internationales de Hautes de l'université du lolll maintenant j'étudie chez le Buildconferderation du waasland comme ingeneer dans les usines hydrauliques Aucun nous parlons la langue 4 chez la Belgique allemande, anglais, français, hollandais + ils sont neutres moi

BTY without trancelation page ))))

now in german

Hmmm waren Sie das erste zu cal ich Namen wie IDIOT-Recht??!! So, wer dieses nicht ich begann Ich replyed gerade zurück dieses Thema daß US, die meistens wegen Zahlen... nicht des bether gewonnen werden, unsere Piloten für 100% wie Sie planieren, m¶chten glauben Wenn es verletzt, daß US nicht immer so sei es das beste sind. Telefon ich wich Buch, das dieses Letzte von Christopher Ailsby... las folgende Zeitantwort zurück zu mir in meiner Sprache L¤ßt sehen, wem intelligent ist

Sintubin
06-18-2006, 03:04 PM
We now how strong the axis army was we have been there 2 in a short period

smokincrater
06-18-2006, 07:47 PM
To put everything in a nutshell the Zero was without doubt THE best fighter of the early pacific war. But aircraft design can not make up for pilot skill. If you have a novice at the controls even advanced trainers like the CAC Wirraway can knock down Zeros(and one did).
Even allies at the time throught that the Zero was a wonderplane. Disrespecting one`s emenys strenghts has been the bane of many a lost war.
Even design features of the aircraft found there way into designs such as the Mustang and Hellcat.
The problem Japan had was not coming up with new aircraft and not shifting their strenghts to meet the new chanellge.

Nimits
06-18-2006, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To put everything in a nutshell the Zero was without doubt THE best fighter of the early pacific war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, I strongly disagree with the "without a doubt part." The A6M was certainly more manuverable and faster climbing than any contemporary aircraft, but it was marginally slower than the P-40 and P-39 (and only slightly faster than the Wildcat), had poor high speed handling, and had weak armor and armament. The P-40 was arguably the equal of the A6M as a medium or low altitude fighter, but the relative poor training of the RAAF and USAAF pilots (marginal gunnery practice and a lack of emphasis on anything other than tail chasing tactics) and poor tactical employment (its poor climb rate meant the P-40 was an utter failure as a point defense interceptor against high flying IJN fighters and bombers) mean it did not do as well as it might otherwise have.

If the A6M2 was the best fighter aircraft in the Pacific theater in 1942, it could claim the title only by a very small margin.

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 08:17 PM
I would argue, and not from national arrogance because I genuinely like Japanese aircraft, although they are largely interesting ways to die young until you get to their final generation of wartime designs, that the P-40E and the F4F (-3 or -4) were the best fighters of 1942 in the Pacific---once the Allies had sorted out their tactics for dealing with the special talents of the Zero and Ki-43. Definitely the Zero had a good run but, even as early as the battle for the Dutch East Indies, one Dutch Buff pilot was hammering the Zero. Guadalcanal saw the Zero brought to its knees against the brilliant Marine tactics---the show was over when the Marines were told to go ahead and dogfight the Zeros at the end of the 1942 campaign because so many of the best Zero pilots had been attrited away. The ANZAC P-40E pilots and the AAF 49th FG in P-40Es were besting the Zeros in New Guinea by the end of '42.

My virtual life has been saved over and over by the ruggedness of the Wildcat and the P-40E while I have been killed in a half-second over and over in Zero 21s.

The Zero was the greatest strategic weapon the Japanese had in the 1941-42 air war because it allowed them to attack the Allies at great distances from its home bases. The Allies had nothing to compare with it in this respect until the first P-38s arrived at Guadalcanal at the end of 1942. I would argue that it was flawed tactically by its low survivability if hit.

smokincrater
06-18-2006, 08:51 PM
You guys are talking about tactics not aircraft design. As I said above even shockers like Wirraways can knock down zeros if you have dumbos flying them.
Without a shadow of doubt the Zero was surperior to anything the Americans had. It would give a Hurricane a hell of time and it would have been interesting against a Spitfire I.
Buffalos in Burma were slaughtered you cannot despute that surely! Chinese I-16`s were smashed.The only aircraft to do any good was the P-40 and from above and behind!

leitmotiv
06-18-2006, 09:35 PM
All you have to do is look at the destruction of the redoutable Lae fighter unit from Tainan Sentai---one after another the great aces and pilots were killed over Guadalcanal and New Guinea from the beginning of August 1942 until the end of the year. Few Allied units suffered as badly even in the early days of the war. Had Sakai had an armor glass windscreen on his Zero maybe he wouldn't have been knocked out of the war. How many Zero pilots died because their aircraft could not sustain hits from heavy machine guns? A great fighting aircraft is a balanced blend of offensive and defensive qualities. The Japanese aircraft of 1941-42 (with the exception of the Ki-44) were underpowered, too lightly built, unarmored, and had unprotected tanks. This led to the near total destruction of the Navy's best pilots and crews by the end of 1942---Santa Cruz saw their carrier strike aircraft slaughtered by the new USN 40mm automatic cannon. They sank HORNET and badly damaged ENTERPRISE but at a huge, unsustainable cost. Yamamoto had been in charge of aircraft procurement in the Navy Ministry when these aircraft were developed. He bears a huge responsibility for approving the most lopsided designs in the history of air warfare. Add to that his colossal blunder of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack, and you can say he sabotaged the Japanese war effort like few people in the history of warfare!

smokincrater
06-19-2006, 06:10 AM
Fighters are there to do the shooting not to be shot at(even heavy bombers and tanks take excetion to 40mm bofor cannons.Your aircaft would be so heavy armoured that it would not get off the ground).
Besides Admiral Yamamoto was against entering WWII.

leitmotiv
06-19-2006, 10:25 AM
Yamamoto was against attacking the U.S. but he designed an attack guaranteed to enrage Americans so that a negotiated settlement would have been impossible---and his closest advisors warned him this would be the result---it wasn't like this was an unforeseen circumstance. No aircraft can survive a direct 40mm hit, of course, but Japanese bombers lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and customary (Western) aircrew protection so that they were easy pickings for fighters, 20mm AA, and fragments from near misses from barrage fire from 5" guns. By Santa Cruz, USN AA had advanced to the point that any Japanese success would entail unsupportable losses. By 1943, with the proximity shell in service, superior fighter-direction, and, finally, the Hellcat, the chance of any Japanese bombers penetrating to a carrier task force for a conventional attack sank to practically zero. The last Japanese strike aircraft of the war, the formidable B7A "Grace" was fast and armored---the clearest admission of error in the earlier Japanese strike aircraft. You can't be serious that it made sense to send up pilots in unarmored fighters without self-sealing fuel tanks? The designer of the Zero, Jiro Horikoshi, urged the Navy to build a big engined beast of a fighter which could carry armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but he was overruled on these matters as he was on the G4M bomber.

smokincrater
06-19-2006, 05:24 PM
You have got to remember it was the pilots who do not want the armour not the factory or the ministry.

leitmotiv
06-19-2006, 10:09 PM
100% Right in the case of the fighters---absolutely!!!! Only the Army had the foresight to build a contingency fighter, the Ki-44, which was an alternative to the Ki-43 dogfighter theory, and they backed up their back up with the Ki-61. The Army was far wiser than the Navy which was saddled with only the Zero until 1944.

Nimits
06-19-2006, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Army was far wiser than the Navy which was saddled with only the Zero until 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree the IJA was far wiser in recognizing that maybe the Ki-43 was not exactly the wave of the future, but less so in spreading their production efforts into several different aircraft (Of course, most other major power were doing the same thing). The IJN sort of had the right idea, logistically speaking, in building just one aircraft of each major type (carrier fighter, dive bomber, attack bomber, land bomber, etc.) but of course put all their eggs in the wrong basket (A6M) and left them there far too long.

J_Anonymous
06-19-2006, 11:02 PM
Actually, Mr. Horikoshi points out in his book (the English title is "Zero", from E.P. Dutton, NY and Casselle, London, 1956, there are also French and Spanish editions according to the foreword, although apparently not all chapters were published in English, and the chapters concerning the engineering of Zero was published by Casselle in 1958 as "The Zero Fighter") that the real problem was that IJN had too many ideas, and asked for too many different new designs, hence engineers were too busy and had difficulties in completing their work. That is, Engineers and manufacturers were forced to come up with too many prototypes. The paperback edition (in Japanese) has 645 pages and i have not been able to pin point the paragraph concerning this issue. My recollection is that IJN ordered 3 dozens of prototypes after 1941, and the manufacturers managed to put only 3 new types of airplanes into production between 1941 and 1945, something like that. In other words, virtually all the IJN airplanes that saw combat were conceived and put into designing before 1941. While Japanese engineering and science had reached or surpassed the western standard in some areas before 1941 (for example, 2 sets of Nobel prize were awarded to Japanese scientists for their work conducted before and during WW2), it was long time before Japan became the power house of high tech products. Industrial base was not that broad yet, with only a limited number of engineers.

In passing, in the conclusion (p-568), Mr. Horikoshi specifically mentions about the US allegations of "imitaiton" put forward in the US war-time reports and propaganda. He states that there was a public relations campaign in the US that Zero was an imitation of V-143 or P-35, and he calls it "ho-u-gen" (which rughly translates, "irresponsible statement / lie from a big mouth"). In early chapters, he explains the history of Zero's design, failures and problems, and how he fixed them by trials and errors as well as meticulous testing and theoretical calculations, what kind of theoretical calculations they did, etc. At several points he mentions that they did theoretical calculations of expected speed, role rate etc. before they actually modified Zero, and how the final products compared with their theoretical calculations. I get an impression that he was a very meticulous theorist before an engineer.

In Japan, the public perception toward Admiral Yamamoto is generally warm (even though his planning of Pearl Harbor etc ultimately did not worked out as he envisioned). It is well known that he was one of the few, courageous, vocal opponents of the war. In the political climate of 1930's, speaking against the mainstream war-machine led primarily by IJA, especially by those IJA guys in Kwanto-Gun (in Manchuria) was truly dangerous. His colleagues were concerned about his life, and that was a major reason behind why he became in charge of the combined fleet --- if he was on a ship instead of serving on land, super-right wing assasins can't kill him. He was sent to Harvard University to study when he was young (apparently there is no record of him formally enrolled in any classes, however), and he knew there was no way for Japan to fight a war against the US.

Another (comical) note --- the only political party in Japan that expressed their opposition against the war was (guess!), the Communist Party. The leadership of the Communist party was sent to jail and/or tortured, but many of them persevered in jail, to return to the political scene after 1945. Today they stil receive some support in Japan, specifically because of their anti-war history. My grand mother was not a communist but she voted only for the Communist party. She, as a war widow, could not forgive any other political leadership of Japan.

smokincrater
06-20-2006, 01:26 AM
I don`t think Harvard really likes advertising the fact that an emeny warlord which simply walked up to America and kicked them in the balls was a former student.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 02:03 AM
Yamamoto was a man of undoubted courage and wisdom, but his war operations culminating in the disastrous Midway operation were questionable. Without a doubt the Hawaii operation was one of the most amazing naval feats in the history warfare---not just a naval maneuver but a great adventure---a sea epic.

joeap
06-20-2006, 05:06 AM
@ J_Anonymous: Excellent post, I appreciate the technical info, the bit about the Japanese Communist party is actually not surprising to me though I wonder how they reacted to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Khalkin-Gol incident which took place almost simultaneously. I mean Japan was moving closer to Germany yet was hostile to the USSR so the situation must have been confusing to the JCP. Don't forget that a lot of Communist parties in other countries switched to preaching the virtues of alliance (with the NAZIS) and non-participation of the working class in the war (in Europe) at least until June 41. Japan was involved in China though, and the USSR was invaded, then before Pearl Harbour there was a non-agression pact between Japan and the USSR. Any light shed would be interesting.

@ Sintubin, wow can't make any sense of what was written, but then another forum member from Germany I asked could not read what you wrote in German, anyone care to help? If it was as bad as the french...

Obviously in retrospect I don't like and regret calling people idiots, I don't swallow what Hollywood or Americans or Belgians or anyone else says without cross-checking. I still think it's illogical to refuse one historian because of his nationality then promote 4 others of the same as neutral, and I hate rudeness and trolling whatever the nationality or side. Nuff said and have a nice day.

J_Anonymous, looking forward to any other info about Japanese commies.

Dtools4fools
06-20-2006, 06:38 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Because there is no dispute that that USAAF, despite having a marginally better aircraft in the P-40, at the beginning of the war generally performed less effectively than the USN pilots (similar to the qualtative disparity between the IJA and IJN squdrons). And because USMC and USN F4Fs did the majority of "Zero Fighting" in the first year of the war. </pre>

I do not dispute this.
I was looking rather at the bigger picture; not only the USMC and USN but the entire theater. And then the "japanese only won because of superior numbers and better planes" sounds just too much of an excuse of allied short comings.

Like why were those planes in the Philippines all on the ground. Wasn't Pearl Hrbour attack a bit earlier?
Why were the allieds not able to confront the Japanese in a coordinated effort? Instead they were knocked out one by one in Malayia, in Indonesia, in Burma.

Once the allieds got their act togther they started hitting hard.
With the right tactics "obsolete" aircraft who could not hold it's own against the Zero/Ki-43 suddenly could dictate the fight upon those planes and master them.
Of course it takes time to learn from mistakes (and the japanese learned way to late from their respective mistakes...).
And of course it seems only logical to try to hide those mistakes and short comings...

Interesting that the Ki-44 for example was initially disliked by the Japanese pilots; they did not think much of its qualities and disliked it's shortcomings. From the point of view of a dogfighter like the Zero/Ki-43 as this was still the way they fought.

*****

joeap
06-20-2006, 07:34 AM
Dtools4fools, yes Macarthur knew Pearl Harbour had been attacked...and in fact the Japanese strike force from Formosa was delayed by fog! He kept the planes on the ground, according to what I read in Martin Caidin's book on the B-17 (please someone with more recent or complete information add or correct this) since the Phillipines was "technically" a commonwealth under US protection and he might be involving them prematurley in a war if Macarthur ordered an attack. Does not explain why the fighters were caught though I suspect they were airborne and simply did not expect to see Zeros.

That the Allies were badly coordinated is a vast understatement. Just for the naval side read the history of the ABDA force and how poorly they worked together ... Battle of the Java Sea anyone?

Sintubin
06-20-2006, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
@ J_Anonymous: Excellent post, I appreciate the technical info, the bit about the Japanese Communist party is actually not surprising to me though I wonder how they reacted to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Khalkin-Gol incident which took place almost simultaneously. I mean Japan was moving closer to Germany yet was hostile to the USSR so the situation must have been confusing to the JCP. Don't forget that a lot of Communist parties in other countries switched to preaching the virtues of alliance (with the NAZIS) and non-participation of the working class in the war (in Europe) at least until June 41. Japan was involved in China though, and the USSR was invaded, then before Pearl Harbour there was a non-agression pact between Japan and the USSR. Any light shed would be interesting.

@ Sintubin, wow can't make any sense of what was written, but then another forum member from Germany I asked could not read what you wrote in German, anyone care to help? If it was as bad as the french...

Obviously in retrospect I don't like and regret calling people idiots, I don't swallow what Hollywood or Americans or Belgians or anyone else says without cross-checking. I still think it's illogical to refuse one historian because of his nationality then promote 4 others of the same as neutral, and I hate rudeness and trolling whatever the nationality or side. Nuff said and have a nice day.

J_Anonymous, looking forward to any other info about Japanese commies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol i grow with french and german + english LEARN to read and understand , Then you might now wat is written! Not wat you learn at shool )) first grade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif you called me IDIOT look back the posts and see for yourself

In fact he is some PROOF of Numerical superiority

I have to say, I´m impressed. I didn´t believed the numerical superiority was so great, and also the number of LW kills is compareble high to their situation, but also meaningless to the sheer Allied numbers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Where is your so called we are the best of all proof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif



http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/nov44.htm

bye

J_Anonymous
06-20-2006, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
@ J_Anonymous: Excellent post, I appreciate the technical info, the bit about the Japanese Communist party is actually not surprising to me though I wonder how they reacted to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Khalkin-Gol incident which took place almost simultaneously. I mean Japan was moving closer to Germany yet was hostile to the USSR so the situation must have been confusing to the JCP. Don't forget that a lot of Communist parties in other countries switched to preaching the virtues of alliance (with the NAZIS) and non-participation of the working class in the war (in Europe) at least until June 41. Japan was involved in China though, and the USSR was invaded, then before Pearl Harbour there was a non-agression pact between Japan and the USSR. Any light shed would be interesting.

J_Anonymous, looking forward to any other info about Japanese commies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My degrees are not in history, but some facts are easy to verify with Wikipedia Japan as I can read Japanese....

Both Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (between Stalin and Hitler) and the Khalkin-Gol incident (arising from the border dispute between Soviets and IJA's Kwanto-gun occupation force of Manchuria, which Japan calls "Nomonhan Incident") took place in 1939. How did Japan Communist Party (JCP) react? Well, not much, because many of them were already in jail or had to go underground. According to Wikipedia Japan, many party members were arrested beginning about 1928-1929 due to the rise of facism under the economic hardships of the 20's to 30's --- the depression hit Japan particularly hard, as Japan did not have large colonies or territories that could absorb the devastating econommic impact of the depression). By 1935 the JCP ceased its operation as an organized party.

You may wonder, then why JCP can still use their election slogan "the only political party which opposed Japanese militarism and war" if they ceased operation in 1935 before Pearl Harbor in 1941? The fact is, Japan was already in all out war with China since 1931 or 1937, depending on which historian you ask the definition of the beginning of the war. Westerners often consider the onset of the Pacific Conflict as 1941, but Japanese often call the war "15 year war" that began in 1931 in China. By 1941, Japan's economy was already completely broken.

If we get back to the original topic and put the A6M Zero in this historical context, the development of the "Year 12 Prototype Fighter" which later became Zero, began in the 12th year of Showa Emperor's reign, i.e. 1937. In Manchuria, during the Khalkin-Gol incident in 1939, IJA's Kwanto-gun army used Ki-27 against Russian I-16 and I-15.

The rise of Japan's militarism went unchecked too long before it became too late to control, in a large part in Manchuria. The IJA Kwanto-gun occupation force of Manchuria was/is EXTREMELY notorious even in Japan, and "Kwanto-gun" is still a dirty word in Japan loathed by the public. It's somewhat ironical that we are going to get another version of this game thanks to those idiotic Kwanto-gun fanatics.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 01:26 PM
Re MacArthur: controversy continues to swirl around the Clark Field debacle. The latest work on it is Bartsch's DECEMBER 8, 1941. Journalist John Costello in DAYS OF INFAMY posited the real reason M grounded the Fortresses was because he had been bribed by the desperate Philippines government which harbored a vain hope Japan would leave the country alone if they remained neutral. Costello claimed M received a (for the time) large deposit in his bank account later in Dec '41 for keeping the Fortresses on the ground that morning. Bartsch is likely the best source.

J_Anonymous
06-20-2006, 01:58 PM
Forgot to comment on the non-agression pact with Soviets.

The IJA military leadership had to concede their virtual defeat, and Prime Minister Tojo (an Army general) stepped down in 1944. The political leadership sought negotiated end of the Pacific War after that, and the primary channel chosen for negotiation was Soviets. Thus the Soviet invasion into northern Japan and Manchuria in 1945 was probably as shocking for Japanese leasership as Pearl Harbor was for the Americans.

An interesting memoir was published in 1980's by the widow of Japan's spy master in Europe stationed in Sweden since before 1941. The IJA colonel sensed the danger of Japan's hooking up with Hitler, as he expected the eventual defeat of Hitler by Stalin. Hence he recommended against the axis treaty with Germany and Italy. The foolish leadership in Japan ignored the spy chief's report.

During the final phase of the Japanese efforts for negotiated settlement with the Allies toward 1945, the spy master again recomemnded to use Switlerland as the window for peace negotiation, instead of Soviets. Again, the fools in Tokyo believed the validity of the non-agression pact. And surprise, surprise, Soviet invasion into Manchuria and northern Japan started out of the blue when Japan was trying to surrender.

joeap
06-20-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:


Lol i grow with french and german + english LEARN to read and understand , Then you might now wat is written! Not wat you learn at shool )) first grade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif you called me IDIOT look back the posts and see for yourself

In fact he is some PROOF of Numerical superiority

I have to say, I´m impressed. I didn´t believed the numerical superiority was so great, and also the number of LW kills is compareble high to their situation, but also meaningless to the sheer Allied numbers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Where is your so called we are the best of all proof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif



http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/nov44.htm

bye </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bye to you too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Bergstrom is excellent btw and I never said "we" are the best.


J_Anonymous, well thank you. I more or less supposed the Japanese communists were out of the picture just needed confirmation from someone who speaks the language and can check source, even if it is wikipedia.

About Khalkin-Gol, I was wondering then if it was exclusively an army show. Of course certain army officers (the fellows you seem to have such esteem for) provoked it. No this is not stupid, after all I can imagine both sides would have been watching each other's shipping and there were shared borders elsewhere. IIRC, I swear I read somewhere (the Nihon Kaigun site perhaps or j-aircraft) the Soviets took some recon pics of Yamato and Musashi under construction.

BTW, a bit late my condoleances for the loss against the socceros. I am pretty neutral as far as the World Cup goes but that's gotta hurt man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif BTW England and Sweden now, Sweden just tied up.

smokincrater
06-20-2006, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Re MacArthur: controversy continues to swirl around the Clark Field debacle. The latest work on it is Bartsch's DECEMBER 8, 1941. Journalist John Costello in DAYS OF INFAMY posited the real reason M grounded the Fortresses was because he had been bribed by the desperate Philippines government which harbored a vain hope Japan would leave the country alone if they remained neutral. Costello claimed M received a (for the time) large deposit in his bank account later in Dec '41 for keeping the Fortresses on the ground that morning. Bartsch is likely the best source. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find this highly unlikely seeing Macarthur A) was a general of the Phillipnies army and they did not have to bride him, just simply order him and B) no commander worth his salt would ever allow such an attack to take place for money. Better get that one on to mythbusters.
Also Clark feild no radar or early warning system because it was believed that no bombers would have the range from there bases in Tiawan.
Also remember the Peral Harbour strike happened on Decmeber 8 Manilia time.

Nimits
06-20-2006, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also Clark feild no radar or early warning system because it was believed that no bombers would have the range from there bases in Tiawan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the FEAF did not put their radar at Clark Field because there was no reason to. Clark Field was primarily a bomber base, though one pursuit squadron was stationed there. The sole long range/GCI radar set operated near Iba Field (still arguably too close to what should obviously have been seen as a primary target for IJN bombers), one of the fighter bases on Luzon, and it was knocked out in the raid on December 8th. However, prior to being destroyed, the set operated well and provided good intercept data. Yet, in spite of the evidence on the radar screen indicating Clark Field was the target, FEAF fighter control vectored most of its airborne fighters to protect the nearby city of Manilla and the adjoining naval base, and held one squadron on the ground at Clark until the IJN bombers were directly overhead just short of their release point (whether it was unwisely being held in reserve or was simply forgotten about is not entirely clear). Once the IJN bombers started hitting Clark, all the airborne fighters were immediately vectored back to Clark, were only a few made contact. Of course, this then left Iba Field defenseless. Iba was plasterd by a second group, knocking out the radar. Without any remaining radar control, Iba put out a distress call, again sucking fighters in transit to Clark back to Iba. The end result of these tactical failures was to get a third of the FEAF destroyed in a day, mostly on the ground, while those fighters that were airborne chased around the sky from one intercept call to the other, the majority never even seeing an IJ plane. Bad tactics and unrealistic expectations of the P-40's performance (several of the intercept orders could only have been successfully executed by an aircraft equipped with afterburner and air intercept radar) led to FEAF's unnecessarily early defeat.

The FEAF fully expected the Japanese to be able to mount bomber attacks from Formosa. What they did not expect was for the IJN to have fighter escort and to immidiately go after the airfields. In the first instance, the FEAF staff can be forgiven; no other fighter in the world besides the Zero, including other front line IJN and IJA types, could have accompanied the G4Ms from from Formosa to Clark and still be able to fight, and even the Japanese Navy themselves were unsure they were going to be able to pull it off until some successful tests and training sorties a few weeks before the attack. In the second instance, it is not exactly clear why many higher ups in the FEAF tactical chain of command expected the IJN to go after the naval base, and especially the city of Manilla, rather than what the airbases the FEAF had already acknowledged were incredibly valuable and incredibly vulnerable targets. FEAF knew the IJN had been flying recon sorties over the Philippines in the days before the war, and so could be expected to have some idea as to the dispostion of the FEAF's forces. Why FEAF's fighter controller was convinced the IJN was going after Manilla rather than Clark is still something of a mystery.

J_Anonymous
06-20-2006, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:

J_Anonymous, well thank you. I more or less supposed the Japanese communists were out of the picture just needed confirmation from someone who speaks the language and can check source, even if it is wikipedia.

About Khalkin-Gol, I was wondering then if it was exclusively an army show. Of course certain army officers (the fellows you seem to have such esteem for) provoked it. No this is not stupid, after all I can imagine both sides would have been watching each other's shipping and there were shared borders elsewhere. IIRC, I swear I read somewhere (the Nihon Kaigun site perhaps or j-aircraft) the Soviets took some recon pics of Yamato and Musashi under construction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My understanding is that Manchuria conflict was a ground conflict on a vast prairie that invloved a majority of IJA air units with the Ki-27. Territorial adventurism of Kwanto-gun was not controllable by the central government in Tokyo any more. The traditional IjA doctrine of infantry based hand-to-hand combat was useless in the prairie, yet the fanatics in IJA didn't entirely admit it, and didn't learn the lesson from the tank battle. Many of the regional IJA commanders in Manchuria were forced to commit suicide after the conflict in the punishing purge, but the worst among the worst IJA army fanatics, Col. Tsuji, survived the purge, and returned to the central leadershiop of IJA in mere two years --- a prelude to more disasters. The word often used in Japan to describe Kwanto-gun (a vast number of IJA units based in Manchuria) is "bo-u-so-u". It's a word to desribe an unstoppable bull. Until 90's, Soviet casuality was understated by Moscow, but it seems that an armed force historian of Russia came over to Japan in 90's after the berlin wall went down, and publicly admitted equally large level of loss on the Russian side, according to some Japanese webs. I don't know if that's an established fact. As I stated above, nobody wants to mention Kwanto-gun in Japan, and I am not sure if objective history was ever written on the Japanese side.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 11:17 PM
Dec 7 1941 was Dec 8 in the Far East. MacA was the C-in-C of U.S. forces in the Philippines which included the Philippines armed forces because the Philippines was still U.S. territory in 1941. MacA had ceased to be in the employ of the P Govt when he was reinstated as a four star U.S. General.

The Soviet Army inflicted severe casualties on the Japanese Army in the two confrontations in 1938-39. This was why the Japanese Army accepted the Navy's Pacific gamble even though the Army would have preferred to settle accounts with the USSR. When one considers the catastrophe that would have befallen the USSR if Japan had attacked them in Dec 1941, it staggers the mind. The Soviets would not have been able to deploy their Far East Army to defend Moscow.

Dtools4fools
06-22-2006, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">no commander worth his salt would ever allow such an attack to take place for money. Better get that one on to mythbusters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having spent a lot of time in the Philippines I actually wouldn't be too sure about it being a myth.
The story reads exactly like one you can read in the local newspapers invloving foreingers being long time in the Philippines and local politicians.

Could be a myth, could be true...who knows...


Nimits, good info on the Luzon air battle there.

Iba being on the cost making it certainly a better place for radar as well as in Clark long range would be seriously hampered by the mountains to the north, east and west. Further up north, San Fernando might have given even earlier warning.

Kind of interesting that they discounted fighter escort as they knew that the fighter planes were at Formosa and they knew the the japanese had carriers (hadn't original japanese plans to use a light carrier for Zero escot to take off?)

Real screw up on allied side.

****

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 04:08 PM
Great post, Nimits, explains quite a bit. I used to rag my high school U.S. Gov teacher about Clark Field because he did his dissertation on McA---good way to get him going on something other than the House of Representatives!

ned7777
07-18-2006, 11:09 AM
earlier some one said the doolittle raid was a military failure. i diisagre with your sophmoric idea because the military point was to increase moral and make the americans belive that we could win.

smokincrater
07-19-2006, 01:09 PM
The doolittle raid archeived very little but it did force the Japanese hand on what to do next.That was to find and sink the remaining American carriers.It forced Yamamoto into a battle that he could have done without and as result he lost his best carrier divison.

BigKahuna_GS
07-19-2006, 08:00 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
ICE-Very true MiamiEagle...but its still a good point to make that many Japanese pilots elected to remove their parachutes and remove their radios and instead relied on hand signals to achieve their objectives. They were very individual and personal warriors. This wasn't about inferiority or anything like that. They knew eactly what the tradeoffs were...they operated differently than the Americans and the British and everyone else they were facing down.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



Excellent posts and I agree with most comments here. Japanese pilots were trained to exceptionaly high standards. Indivdually they were very competent and fiercely competative. Their samurai warrior code of death before before surrender (bushido) forcasted savage air battles against the allies & (ground battles) the likes of which western air forces/armies had never seen before. Dying for the emporer culminated with the extreme example of kamikaze/banzai attacks during the late war years in which the majority of all japanese army/marine garrisons fought to the last man during the allied island hoping campaign on the road to tokoyo.

While the japanese stressed high individual competance within thier army and navy pilots ranks, "individualism" was their fatal flaw. Their philosphy was that one on one they had the best trained pilots in the world. Japanese air tacticians saw air battles breaking down into individual fights in which japanese pilots being the higher skilled pilot would win. This
World War 1 air war mentality placed emphasis on idividual dogfighting prowess and the zero fighter plane reflected this philosophy. The Japanese sacrificed speed, armor, mid-high speed manueverability/roll rate so the zero could be the best dogfighter. Japanese pilots sacrificed
parachutes and radios to accomplish their mission. Many japanese pilots have said their radios were of poor quality and could not be relied upon to work so they removed it.

Fortunatley the US Navy stressed team tactics as the F4 Wildcat was inferior to the Zero in several areas. The USAAF & RAF team tactics evolved during the early war years because of the surprising performance A6m2 Zero. Utilizing team tactics made the difference for the allies in holding the line until more advanced fighter types arrived. In contrast it was the undoing for the japanese in which they did not re-evaluate and change both tactics and aircraft types until it was too late in the war to make a difference


__