Excited, but at the same time disappointed

[YSoMadTovarisch]

 We could also start talking about the Shiden, which outclassed everything the US had in the entire war at lower alts, in pretty much everything, from speed, to climb rate, to manouverability...

 

Nope, it was maneuverable, but other than that it 50kph slower than any contemporary US war plane apart from the F6F(and maybe the P38), although it did have quite decent climb.

Edited January 13, 2016 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

Another example woud be the shift on the Fw-190 from radial BMW-801 to inline Jumo-213 engines. The design changes involved with the switch were severe as the Jumo occupied way more space than the BMW-801 and called for a longer tail to balace CoG out properely. It worked but involved heavy design manipulation that eventually had a significant effect on it's flight characteristics.

This one is actually funny, Kawasaki used FW-190 A-5 to figure out how to put Ha-112-II into an airframe designed around DB engine and they managed to do it in a very clean way. In the same time German designers did the opposite replacing radial with inline engine.

 

 

Nope, it was maneuverable, but other than that it 50kph slower than any contemporary US war plane apart from the F6F(and maybe the P38), although it did have quite decent climb.

To be fair there are only two numbers available from actual manual for N1K2-J, that is 583 km/h at 3000 meters and 611 km/h at 6000 meters - both at rated power. And this only with derated engine, as all Homare engine at that time were limited to lower RPM and Manifold Pressure. Sad consequence of rush from prototype to mass production for the engine. 

[JtD]

Nothing wrong what i said. If you think so, please specify. Otherwise your statement has no value.

Time's not unlimited, so quickly this:

In the beginning of the war till late 1942 the Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects.

This is wrong. Total bollocks, in fact.

From mid 1942 till the beginning of 1944 they didn't have any real upgrades concerning fighter aircraft performance,

This is wrong, too, even though more of a strong overstatement then an error.

But in 1944, and also 1945, where the hugely upgraded Japanese aircraft, especially J2M, Ki84/Ki100 and N1K2 came out, the Japanese surpassed the US aircraft at low to medium altitudes again, especially the USN planes.

This is wrong, again.

Another plane, the J2M Raiden, which was only built around 500 times, shot down more US planes (around 700) then the number of produced aircraft, and that mostly against B29, P51, P47 at high alts.

Sounds fishy, so I'd like to see the source. In particular how this figure has been cross checked against US losses.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Time's not unlimited, so quickly this:

This is wrong. Total bollocks, in fact.

This is wrong, too, even though more of a strong overstatement then an error.

This is wrong, again.

Sounds fishy, so I'd like to see the source. In particular how this figure has been cross checked against US losses.

Only thing bollocks here, are your unfounded accusations.

1. Zero was absolutely superior to the P40, Buffalo, and Wildcat, the 3 main fighters of the US in the pacific at that times. It was also superior to P39. Only fighter who could hold it's own was the P38, but also only later..when they got their redesign, and could finally dive properly. 

2. mid 42 the 3 mainstay fighters of the Japanese were Zero, Ki61 and Ki43. End of 43 it was still the same

3. Ki84, N1K2 were better then the US fighters in every aspect but one. They had a better acceleration then Mustang or P47, better turn, better overall manouverabiity, better climb rate. So pretty much everything that has value in dogfighting. They had better armament as well. Only thing the US have been better, was speed. The advantage was even bigger compared to the USN planes (who climb worse, have worse acceleration, worse overall performance). The mainstay fighter of the Navy, even in 45, the Hellcat, has been outclassed in every aspect.

4. source is this

[MiloMorai]

If the A6M was so superior to the F4F, then why did the Japanese loose more a/c at Guadalcanal than the Americans?

[JtD]

1. The only aircraft the Japanese had that were superior to US counterparts were their carrier based torpedo plane in the first half of 1942, where the B5N was clearly better than the TBD, and the ship based scout/recon aircraft like the E13A. Everything else was different in design philosophy, in some ways worse, in some ways better, and overall not superior to the US aircraft. Just look at the bombload an SBD carried, and compare it to a D3A. Now you've limited your "Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects" to the "absolutely superior A6M" compared to a few types, which is still a sweeping statement ignoring several important details. One does wonder in face of the IJN super planes you advertise, how the IJN managed to win just one out of the four major carrier battles of 1942.

2. In mid 1942 the Ki-61 certainly was not a mainstay of the Japanese air force, it didn't even see combat before early 1943. Both the A6M and the Ki-43 evolved in the time frame.

3. I'm sorry that your "every aspect" for "surpassing" and "outclassing" are so limited. Totally baffles me. I also don't get why dogfighting appears to have such a high priority to you, but it explains your point of view to some degree. Plus I could argue the finer details of the few points you assessed, but let me just state that I disagree with some of them to some degree.

4. Is insufficient.

Edited January 14, 2016 by JtD

[MiloMorai]

 

 

In mid 1942 the Ki-61 certainly was not a mainstay of the Japanese air force

 

Be sure. The first Ki-61 was produced in Aug '42 and only 34 came off the line that year.

[Brano]

I wouldn't take encyclopedia-like publications as source for anything more then surface-scratch info for plebs. Serious hobbist/researcher invests into up-to-date monographies,best if several sources are available.To compare and complement each other.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

1. The only aircraft the Japanese had that were superior to US counterparts were their carrier based torpedo plane in the first half of 1942, where the B5N was clearly better than the TBD, and the ship based scout/recon aircraft like the E13A. Everything else was different in design philosophy, in some ways worse, in some ways better, and overall not superior to the US aircraft. Just look at the bombload an SBD carried, and compare it to a D3A. Now you've limited your "Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects" to the "absolutely superior A6M" compared to a few types, which is still a sweeping statement ignoring several important details. One does wonder in face of the IJN super planes you advertise, how the IJN managed to win just one out of the four major carrier battles of 1942.

2. In mid 1942 the Ki-61 certainly was not a mainstay of the Japanese air force, it didn't even see combat before early 1943. Both the A6M and the Ki-43 evolved in the time frame.

3. I'm sorry that your "every aspect" for "surpassing" and "outclassing" are so limited. Totally baffles me. I also don't get why dogfighting appears to have such a high priority to you, but it explains your point of view to some degree. Plus I could argue the finer details of the few points you assessed, but let me just state that I disagree with some of them to some degree.

4. Is insufficient.

1. i was only talking about fighters all the time, not about bombers or anything else. If you would have followed the discussion, you'd known that

2. I said "didn't have real upgrades", meaning no big or crucial upgrades. Never said they didn't get any upgrade. Ki61 (didn't have the official name yet, something like Fighter Type 3, but it was more or less the same aircraft) first saw combat at April 1942, in smaller numbers however(Yokohama, defense against B25 bombers). 

3. see 1.

 

 

If the A6M was so superior to the F4F, then why did the Japanese loose more a/c at Guadalcanal than the Americans?

maybe, because there are other aircraft as well, like waterplanes, bombers, ground attackers. + the US had already new Lightning, and Corsairs. And better pilots. Etc etc. More interesting would be the loss rate of only the fighters (where also the F4F only covered a certain amount) Apart from that, even the complete K/D regarding aircraft was pretty much balanced. 

 

 

I wouldn't take encyclopedia-like publications as source for anything more then surface-scratch info for plebs. Serious hobbist/researcher invests into up-to-date monographies,best if several sources are available.To compare and complement each other.

Good luck deciphering original Japan documents. Those books are the best a normal western citizen can find about Japanese aircraft performances and war logs. And as long as i don't see anything clearly contradicting, what they say, i believe them.

Edited January 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[JtD]

1. i was only talking about fighters all the time, not about bombers or anything else. If you would have followed the discussion, you'd known that

Actually, I read this topic and asked you to either read up or be more accurate with your wording. And you replied with another sweeping statement about "planes". Which you also did several times before. It's not my fault you can't be accurate, even after being asked to be. So make it whatever you want, your statement's still sweeping and inaccurate, even when limited to what you are starting to limit them to now.

2. I said "didn't have real upgrades", meaning no big or crucial upgrades. Never said they didn't get any upgrade. Ki61 (didn't have the official name yet, something like Fighter Type 3, but it was more or less the same aircraft) first saw combat at April 1942, in smaller numbers however(Yokohama, defense against B25 bombers).

Look up production numbers and you'll find how laughable this is. The prototypes at their factory "saw combat" during the Doolittle raid. That does not make them a mainstay of the IJA air force in mid 1942.

3. see 1.

Actually, no. Point 1 is about your sweeping statements, point 3 about your focus on dogfighting as the sole criteria for determining the superior (fighter) plane. For instance, the Ki-84 for me disqualifies not only as one of the best but also as a good fighter aircraft, because it was failure prone. Great design, that had lots of troubles. Applying your standards for fighter evaluation to bombers, the He177 was totally superior to anything the Allies had. It just happened to fall out of the sky burning all the time.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Apparently you didn't follow the topic at all. Because you seemingly have no idea what it is about.

Someone said, that "PTO woud be bad for flight sims, because of the bad Japanese planes".I countered that with my initial statement. Everything i said and discussed since then, was solely about the sheer performance, that is important for a flight sim. Nothing about production error, nothing about bad fuel, nothing about all that.

I already said this once in this topic, so you didn't follow it at all. And in those, for a flight sim relevant numbers, there was no time where the US really outclassed the Japanese. The pendulum swung around, first the Japanese had better fighters, then the US surpassed them, and in the end both have been pretty much equal, with different focuses (US more on high alt, Japanese more on manouverability, climb rate, dogfight performance in general). Everything i said since then was about that topic. Stuff like a failure prone engine don't count anything in this discussion.

So please leave me alone with your nagging, unless you have something important to say to this very discussion.

[JtD]

OK kid, have it your way.

Edited January 14, 2016 by JtD

[Crump]

[Edited]

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bearcat
Knock it off Crump

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I wouldn't take encyclopedia-like publications as source for anything more then surface-scratch info for plebs. Serious hobbist/researcher invests into up-to-date monographies,best if several sources are available.To compare and complement each other.

 

Yeah, 32 self-educated WWII buffs citing the same source material is a lot better than encyclopedias for "plebs."

 

[Crump]

Not sure why you are having rudder issues in DCS. Hopefully you've set your curves to around 35-40 to take the stink out of raw controller inputs. If you use 'enough' rudder to keep the ball centered, the Pony flys great. You forget to apply enough, you'll flick out.

 

Crump, I am an airline pilot with a lot of experience in several types of aircraft, from an Extra 300 to a B-52. Planes fly like planes in DCS. If you forget your feet, you'll struggle. The axis stabilities are quite nice and each plane is different in that they are each separate simulations. The only issue I have with DCS is button input speeds preventing precise trim inputs - gotta bump back n forth to you get what you want, and thet visual acuity of other aircraft in the current graphics engine - which will be fixed in 2.0.

 

The Dora is a fine addition, but the 109 K4 is still in Beta and is a rocket ship. Just assigned my flight control to it today after having it in my hanger for almost a year now. It is a MONSTER. Dominated my flying against the P-51 to the point that I got board. Hopefully it's speed and climb model will be fixed in the final version.

 

With that said, sorry to see you go. You're gonna miss out when DCS WWII comes out.

 

V

 

I am an airline pilot, A&P, aircraft owner (taildragger), and hold a Degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry Riddle.

 

[Edited]

 

This is not the place to air a grievance with DCS.

A comparative comment on FMs between sims is one thiung but this is crossing over into something else.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[TheElf]

If the A6M was so superior to the F4F, then why did the Japanese loose more a/c at Guadalcanal than the Americans?

 

Because the Japanese were flying 8 hour missions that averaged over 1000 miles round trip.  A simple nick to a system or sub-system could mean certain death, and often did for any airman who had to make a return trip with combat damage.  Half the US Fliers downed over Cactus were recovered.  Almost none of the Japanese were.

 

The Early days at Cactus were benefited by an extensive network of Aussie Coast-watchers who warned the command structure at Guadalcanal when large formations of IJN forces were inbound.  The Wildcats often enjoyed beginning a battle in positions where they could mitigate their Aircraft's performance deficiencies.  Later they had radar as well and Figther Direction.  The Japanese were often blind to where the Americans were coming from and relied on visual lookout doctrine.

 

Don't mistake strategic and tactical factors for winning or losing a battle for an indication of a single aircraft's edge over another.  The Japanese were battling strategic conditions that lead to adverse tactical conditions. 

OK kid, have it your way.

 

wow, condescend much?

[TheElf]

1. The only aircraft the Japanese had that were superior to US counterparts were their carrier based torpedo plane in the first half of 1942, where the B5N was clearly better than the TBD, and the ship based scout/recon aircraft like the E13A. Everything else was different in design philosophy, in some ways worse, in some ways better, and overall not superior to the US aircraft. Just look at the bombload an SBD carried, and compare it to a D3A. Now you've limited your "Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects" to the "absolutely superior A6M" compared to a few types, which is still a sweeping statement ignoring several important details. One does wonder in face of the IJN super planes you advertise, how the IJN managed to win just one out of the four major carrier battles of 1942.

2. In mid 1942 the Ki-61 certainly was not a mainstay of the Japanese air force, it didn't even see combat before early 1943. Both the A6M and the Ki-43 evolved in the time frame.

3. I'm sorry that your "every aspect" for "surpassing" and "outclassing" are so limited. Totally baffles me. I also don't get why dogfighting appears to have such a high priority to you, but it explains your point of view to some degree. Plus I could argue the finer details of the few points you assessed, but let me just state that I disagree with some of them to some degree.

4. Is insufficient.

 

 

I think the big take away from this discussion ( i use the term lightly) is that you and Manu are talking about two different things.  He is clearly talking about E-M diagram absolutes, absent manufacturing quality and fuel made with pine sap, while you are disagreeing with his position based on a holistic assessment of the forces that employed them and all the ancillary factors that drove the statistics (pilot training, fuel octane, supply situation, radar, tactics etc.)

 

I agree with both of you when viewing this discussion from you own individual points of view.  You are both right.

 

I've been a participant in these sorts of discussions in other forums, and its important to keep the context of each other's statements in mind.

 

Put simply, The US airman was at a performance disadvantage in aircraft, in enough categories to matter appreciably, from Dec 7 1941 until Sept 1943 when they finally introduced the Hellcat.  Even then the first examples of combat with the Zero were not decisive to say the least.  The same could be said about the introduction of the Corsair.  What made the US capable of holding the line was not the planes they were flying necessarily, but the men and the training and tactics they employed from the early lessons of China, Coral Sea, and Midway.

 

At the end of the day I think Manu's point is that a PTO release in the BoS Engine would not translate to the doom and gloom, "the US won the War in 1942 with superior aircraft, so this sim will suck...".  I agree.  Anyone who thinks that needs to do some serious reading about the pacific.  There are few instances where the US out paced the absolute technical merits of any IJN or IJAAF design to the extent that it was "boring" or "no contest", until you get to the advance on the home islands and the average IJ pilot had 10 hours and was on a suicide mission.

 

For those who want to quote the historical statistics of 19:1 kill ratios and such, one has to consider the vast majority of men who flew the IJ machines were incapable of mounting any kind of complex operation or lacked the foundation in basic fighter tactics and employment that the average US flier had in spades by 1944-45.

 

On the subject of how a PTO release would translate to BoS?  I think an early war 1942 release would look an awful lot like BoS in the sense the US would be in a 1 v 1 disadvantage on par with the current VVS disadvantage in a Yak or LaGG vs. and F-4.  A mid-to-late War release would be reversed, but the relative performance merits in BOTH cases would not translate to a Virtual Marianas due to a variety of factors, not the least of which most if not all of the Japanese challenges would be in fact difficult to design in to the game and the average combat simmer here has more time in virtual combat than any Ace that ever flew in WWII for real.

Edited January 14, 2016 by TheElf

[JtD]

I think the big take away from this discussion ( i use the term lightly) is that you and Manu are talking about two different things.  He is clearly talking about E-M diagram absolutes, absent manufacturing quality and fuel made with pine sap, while you are disagreeing with his position based on a holistic assessment of the forces that employed them and all the ancillary factors that drove the statistics (pilot training, fuel octane, supply situation, radar, tactics etc.)

Actually, I'm mostly disagreeing with his sweeping generalisations which I am supposed to mind read are just his way of saying that under specific circumstances, plane A could climb away from plane B. Never got to arguing the finer points, though, because he plays insulted when being asked to be more accurate with his choice of words.

 

So on the matter, I've always preferred the P-40 over the contemporary A6M in computer games for better speed, firepower and high speed manoeuvrability. That covers 1941 and 1942. So disagree with the assessment of total Japanese superiority even here.

The same merits stay true for the rest of the war, with about all possible line ups, excluding normally modelled F6F's vs. optimistically modelled IJN/IJA late war aircraft or something equally off.

 

Also from my experience, with a little bit of teamwork and skill on the Allied side, no matter what the blue side tried, it was a slaughter - owing to exactly the attributes mentioned above. If the red side composed of low skill no teamwork folks, it usually was a slaughter the other way round, usually even if the blue side's pilots were just as bad.

Edited January 14, 2016 by JtD

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

If the A6M was so superior to the F4F, then why did the Japanese loose more a/c at Guadalcanal than the Americans?

Because it had little to do with the aircraft itself but a lot with tactical situation, Americans could detect Japanese a lot earlier and position themselves above. Americans also were not the ones that had to fly 600 miles to the target area, control all the time fuel usage, protect the bombers (and considering Navy tactical approach to the escort it did not work as good as they anticipated to). Japanese losses hardly had anything to do with aircraft they used, even so complained G4M could take a beating and make it back to base every now and than, it depended though on the distance - longer it was, lower chances they could make it. Ki-48s and G4Ms used over Darwin in 1943 could take some punishment from Spitfires Vc and returned home, simply because distance was much closer. Same thing worked for Americans, their damaged aircraft had higher chances of returning. 

 

Besides, overall losses were for long exaggerated because nobody really put a deep effort into crosschecking Japanese records, so all "confirmed claims" approved by officers in US units were often taken as verified kills, which was not the case at the end. 

There lately appeared a very nice books being most detailed accounts of the Guadalcanal Air combat, basically analyzing events day by day. One flaw from my perspective is language, as I dont speak French  but its not hard to get over it as for every combat there is a table indicating information one is looking for :

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/histoire-de-l-aviation/1958

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/histoire-de-l-aviation/2503

 

 

1. The only aircraft the Japanese had that were superior to US counterparts were their carrier based torpedo plane in the first half of 1942, where the B5N was clearly better than the TBD, and the ship based scout/recon aircraft like the E13A. Everything else was different in design philosophy, in some ways worse, in some ways better, and overall not superior to the US aircraft. Just look at the bombload an SBD carried, and compare it to a D3A. Now you've limited your "Japanese had superior aircraft in all aspects" to the "absolutely superior A6M" compared to a few types, which is still a sweeping statement ignoring several important details. One does wonder in face of the IJN super planes you advertise, how the IJN managed to win just one out of the four major carrier battles of 1942.

2. In mid 1942 the Ki-61 certainly was not a mainstay of the Japanese air force, it didn't even see combat before early 1943. Both the A6M and the Ki-43 evolved in the time frame.

 

1. In its role A6M was clearly superior to Wildcat. Prime example can be Midway which has highlighted certain advantages of it, namely that Japanese fighters were first to take-off for the Midway strike and yet had sufficient fuel to make the attack on Midway installations, return and orbit their carriers while the American airstrikes were in progress, some of Zeros even went up in a desperate try to catch the B-17s flying high. After the sinking of the carriers CAP had to stay aloft for long periods before landing on extremely busy deck of Hiryu was possible. In contrast the Wildcats (from VF-6) orbiting above the Japanese task force could not afford to drop to a low altitude lest their fuel was insufficient to allow them to climb to protect the dive bombers once they arrived to the scene. Ten Wildcats from Hornet ditched after running out of fuel following a navigational error on the return flight to the carrier. 

During the defense of the carriers some Zeros subsequently landed, rearmed and launched with others being able to catch up rapidly to the targets. They responded as fast as it was possible without any radar direction to the threats and engaged them, despite enemies approached from various directions. Overcoming serious tactical disadvantage (being low) Zeros also inflicted heavy losses on Navy SBDs as they withdrew from attacking the carriers.

Zeros proved to be much better escorts and interceptors when needed, while Wildcats more often were forced to concentrate on self defense and provided little help to the torpedo bombers. 

If not for the radar direction, than instead of 7 machines from original formation of 18, more would actually strike Yorktown. 

 

Wildcat could stand well in 1942 because of high skill of pilots who flew it and could utilize tactical advantages given by the radar. 

 

With last sentence, honestly, this is some weird exaggeration. Was Luftwaffe able to utilize in 1944 the "superior Me 262" to turn the tables ? No, and not because aircraft did not raise to the expectations but because of tactical odds and situation. As much as the aircraft can be superior, its only a tool flown by some people who have various experience, who are lead by different commanders and who require massive logistical base behind them.

 

Afaik, Japanese Navy managed to introduce two new models of Zero during 1942 - A6M3 model 32 with greater rate of roll, speed and rate of climb in July and by the end of the year long range A6M3 model 22, some of which were already armed with long barrel Type 99 cannons. 

 

2. Correct, Ki-61 was not operational aircraft until early 1943. In a 1942 it was switching from prototype phase to production, but Kawasaki was in a situation like a Supermarine was in 1938-1939, it did not have enough resources to turn into a major manufacturer. It was just a small company before the war after all.

 

 

 

 

Good luck deciphering original Japan documents. Those books are the best a normal western citizen can find about Japanese aircraft performances and war logs. And as long as i don't see anything clearly contradicting, what they say, i believe them.

 

Well, you dont need Japanese publications mate. There are enough decent publications in English, in particular Osprey has provided in last 2 years much better products than before. Other than that, there are many magazines lately that do the job better than old books, it seems that some authors lately prefer to sell their work in lesser amounts but more often.  

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So on the matter, I've always preferred the P-40 over the contemporary A6M in computer games for better speed, firepower and high speed manoeuvrability. That covers 1941 and 1942. So disagree with the assessment of total Japanese superiority even here.

The same merits stay true for the rest of the war, with about all possible line ups, excluding normally modelled F6F's vs. optimistically modelled IJN/IJA late war aircraft or something equally off.

Game is not always a great indication of events and aircraft performance, there are people who raise their concerns about FW-190 rate of roll in BoS, there were people complaining about 109s in Forgotten Battles. 

P-40 is a nice aircraft, but if I'd lean to the same way you look at it, it;s not even considered a fighter in BoS with its terrible rate of climb and handling at higher altitudes, firepower means little when 109s can dance circles around you. I truly love flying P-40 in BoS but it is hardly comparable in any dogfights even against 109 E and Mc 202. 

 

I'd like to see the definition of "optimistically modelled" ... 

Certainly Zeros remained inferior in high speed environment, but N1K or J2M could handle themselves out there. They did not lack any firepower or speed as well. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Well, you dont need Japanese publications mate. There are enough decent publications in English, in particular Osprey has provided in last 2 years much better products than before. Other than that, there are many magazines lately that do the job better than old books, it seems that some authors lately prefer to sell their work in lesser amounts but more often.  

Do you have some links? Would be pretty happy to get more sources about Japanese planes. Really like them, and so far, i have by far the least information about them in comparison to German, Soviet, US, and English planes.. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Can start with things like that : 

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-43-oscar-aces-of-world-war-2

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-44-tojo-aces-of-world-war-2-pb

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-61-and-ki-100-aces

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-27-nate-aces

https://ospreypublishing.com/b-24-liberator-vs-ki-43-oscar
https://ospreypublishing.com/p-40-warhawk-vs-ki-43-oscar-35984

This one is a bit older but still fine :
https://ospreypublishing.com/imperial-japanese-navy-aces-1937-45

 

This pretty much covers most of what would be interesting for the beginner, there are few other duels but some of them (like P-38 vs Ki-61) contain a lot of outdated data.  

Other things that can be interesting, outside of Osprey :

http://www.amazon.com/Gendas-Blade-Japans-Squadron-Kokutai/dp/1903223253 - this is pretty much one of the best books I have read around, its only bested by this one :

http://www.tainanbooks.com/

This one contains a lot of interesting notes from pilots perspective : 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Zero-Fighter-Firsthand/dp/1468178806

 

Thats about as much as I can get from my memory right now  

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Can start with things like that : 

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-43-oscar-aces-of-world-war-2

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-44-tojo-aces-of-world-war-2-pb

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-61-and-ki-100-aces

https://ospreypublishing.com/ki-27-nate-aces

https://ospreypublishing.com/b-24-liberator-vs-ki-43-oscar

https://ospreypublishing.com/p-40-warhawk-vs-ki-43-oscar-35984

This one is a bit older but still fine :

https://ospreypublishing.com/imperial-japanese-navy-aces-1937-45

 

This pretty much covers most of what would be interesting for the beginner, there are few other duels but some of them (like P-38 vs Ki-61) contain a lot of outdated data.  

Other things that can be interesting, outside of Osprey :

http://www.amazon.com/Gendas-Blade-Japans-Squadron-Kokutai/dp/1903223253 - this is pretty much one of the best books I have read around, its only bested by this one :

http://www.tainanbooks.com/

This one contains a lot of interesting notes from pilots perspective : 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Zero-Fighter-Firsthand/dp/1468178806

 

Thats about as much as I can get from my memory right now

 

Thanks mate. Just saw that they are covering pretty much any aircraft, any battle, any encounter, that has happened ever. More then i can read in a lifetime, i guess. Many thanks!

First thing i realized: "the pilots of the Ki27 Nate claimed to have shot down 46 I-16 aircraft, with only one loss. The Chinese however had only 10 aircraft shot down in reality"

Great that both sides are analyzed, so that you get the proper numbers. That's by far my biggest critic i have towards Gordon&Khazanov books..they always tell how many kills the Russian pilots claimed, but what they don't tell is the truth..how many aircraft really got shot down. So without books, covering the German side properly, the numbers you get are worthless.

PS: yes, i started already reading

Edited January 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Thanks mate. Just saw that they are covering pretty much any aircraft, any battle, any encounter, that has happened ever. More then i can read in a lifetime, i guess. Many thanks!

No problem. And besides, those are just basics.  If you are interested in some minor nations around, than Manchukuo may be fine for you as well : http://www.arawasi.jp/salebook.hp/aramag/Manchukuo.html

I hope to get at some point through things like that : http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/1693

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/2133

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/1179

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

No problem. And besides, those are just basics.  If you are interested in some minor nations around, than Manchukuo may be fine for you as well : http://www.arawasi.jp/salebook.hp/aramag/Manchukuo.html

I hope to get at some point through things like that : http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/1693

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/2133

http://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/1179

 

 

Nice. If you do, please translate into English

 

 

btw: to the discussion before about the Zero against the Wildcat/P40. I think there shouldn't be a discussion what so ever about those 2 birds. Probably the same difference between the Zero and the Wildcat, then between the 109F4 and the Lagg3.

One comment from the worlds most famous test pilot:

Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy, recalled being impressed by the Zero during tests of captured aircraft. "I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943"

Edited January 15, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[JtD]

1. In its role A6M was clearly superior to Wildcat. ...

In some ways, not all. Overall, it probably had the edge.

 

With last sentence, honestly, this is some weird exaggeration. Was Luftwaffe able to utilize in 1944 the "superior Me 262" to turn the tables ?

Seriously, the Me262 situation in your opinion is similar to the carrier battles of 1942 on the Japanese side?

 

Game is not always a great indication of events and aircraft performance,...

I'm very well aware of that, but folks appear to want to talk "game".

 

I'd like to see the definition of "optimistically modelled" ...

Prototype performance, handbook figures. An N1K2 going 640, a Ki-84 going 680. All possible, just not realistic values for the aircraft while in Japanese service.

 

Probably the same difference between the Zero and the Wildcat, then between the 109F4 and the Lagg3.

More like Bf109F4 and Fw190, with a de-rated BMW801. Edited January 15, 2016 by JtD

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Pilots flying the Wildcat considered the Zero superiour in aerial combat. Don't have it at hand but it's also noted in the US report of the captured and partly rebuild Zero testflown for evaluation.

 

The Wildcat certainly had strongpoints like good armour, self sealing fuel tanks and a roomy cockpit. But in terms of manouvrebility it just couldn't match the Zero at usual combat speeds (which is what counts most).

 

You can also not easily say armarment was superiour. Aircrafts in the pacific performed multiple tasks including CAS so they had to have versatile armarment. While M2 Brownings come in handy for aerial and ground targets the 20mm cannons may be preferrable in certain situation.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[JtD]

The low muzzle velocity, low rate of fire and low ammo supply are serious drawbacks for the 20mm guns. You either restrict your firing, or you'll run out of ammo soon. In terms of energy (kinetic at muzzle plus chemical), the F4F-3 carried 2-3 times that of the A6M2, depending on the belting. In terms of energy output (i.e. firepower), even with the 20mm still going and only using HE, the F4F has a clear advantage.

Of course, the A6M has the edge once the M2 of the Wildcat run out, as it still has the peashooters.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Seriously, the Me262 situation in your opinion is similar to the carrier battles of 1942 on the Japanese side?

No, it was pure ad absurdum to show that aircraft is only a part of the whole chain. 

 

 

 

Prototype performance, handbook figures. An N1K2 going 640, a Ki-84 going 680. All possible, just not realistic values for the aircraft while in Japanese service.

And what are the realistic, because I've been researching this topic for years and its very hard to be certain of anything.

For N1K2-J there is only a small manual reprint available in Gakken Pictorial Series book, for Ki-84 there is a supposed copy of a manual available in NASM Garber Facility.

Drawing a line between a realism and optimism when you dont have any documents to prove so sounds rather like a bias or wishful thinking than proper approach to the topic. Not to mention that games dont and never should take into account things like degrading quality of manufacturing, lack of skilled maintenance crews  or dropping quality of fuel. It's entertainment, not NASA program. 

 

 

 

The low muzzle velocity, low rate of fire and low ammo supply are serious drawbacks for the 20mm guns.

It was a limited gun, but nonetheless was used effectively. The muzzle velocity and rate of fire was similar to MG FF series, as it was same Oerlikon system. And in about a year since the war started there was a long barrel version available and introduced into service.

Though with last part I can totally agree, the small ammunition loadout was main thing hampering the effectiveness of CAP over Midway, Zeros were forced to land and reload when they really should be in the air all the time.  

 

 

 

F4F-3 carried 2-3 times that of the A6M2, depending on the belting. In terms of energy output (i.e. firepower), even with the 20mm still going and only using HE, the F4F has a clear advantage.

At that time there were no M8 API or M20 API-T rounds, most common rounds were M2 ball and M2 armor piercing. So one must take that into account ...

[JtD]

No, it was pure ad absurdum to show that aircraft is only a part of the whole chain.

But the Me262 situation tactically and strategically and its impact on a strategic campaign is way different from the impact of aircraft performance on the outcome of a few battles, where the only means of attack and the most important means of defence were the very aircraft. In other words, had the IJN or USN had 1945 aircraft with everything else the same, would this have had an impact on the outcome? My guess is yes, whereas an improvement of Me262 performance would probably not have meant a thing.

 

And what are the realistic, because I've been researching this topic for years and its very hard to be certain of anything.

True, hard data is difficult to find. Fortunately, data has to agree with physics and that does allow to fill some gaps.

Not to mention that games dont and never should take into account things like degrading quality of manufacturing, lack of skilled maintenance crews  or dropping quality of fuel. It's entertainment, not NASA program.

I disagree with that to some extent, if it historically was characteristic for the aircraft, I want it in. I don't want the 150 octane fuelled bare metal polished performance if on the front 100 octane and camouflage were the standard, chopping 50km/h off the top speed. Equipment failures, which I think you're mostly talking about, can also be fun in a game, depending on how it is modelled. It certainly beats 2-minutes-under-full-power-before-your-engine-blows algorithms.

 

At that time there were no M8 API or M20 API-T rounds, most common rounds were M2 ball and M2 armor piercing. So one must take that into account ...

My energy comparison was made with M2 ball, though I don't think these figures would change a lot with APIT. It wasn't a that detailed analysis.

 

Edit: Question on sources - are you familiar with the bunrin-do series and what's your opinion about them?

Edited January 15, 2016 by JtD

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

 In other words, had the IJN or USN had 1945 aircraft with everything else the same, would this have had an impact on the outcome?

And if Japanese would have in 1942 a fighter 50-80 km/h faster (impossible with the engines they had at that point, but lets play "what if" scenario), with a greater rate of roll and armament similar to four to six .50 cal machine guns ... would that have an impact ? Problem with "What if" is that you change one variable assuming others will remain same, which would not be the case. And one thing is certain here, that ww2 was in majority a war of attrition. A different fighter built for a different doctrine does not seem to be a factor changing things.

 

 

 

True, hard data is difficult to find. Fortunately, data has to agree with physics and that does allow to fill some gaps.

That's not exactly how it works. You can apply physics if you have some data, otherwise its closer to guessing. One cant build house from the  roof. 

For instance there is little known about Nakajima airfoils due to fact that most of the original drawings and reports got burnt by the end of the war. Airfoils are usually printed for each aircraft in its manual, so you can possibly extarpolate ordinates but it wont be nearly as precise as data from original documents. Other things to match are horsepower curves, to know the engine performance at various altitudes under specific manifold pressure and revolutions. Those exist for some engines like Sakae 12, Ha-40, Mitsubishi Ha-112 or Atsuta AE1A but for the most important aircraft like N1K or Ki-84 powered by Homare 21 I havent seen one. Not to mention that Homare itself is extremely hard to research.

 

 

 

I disagree with that to some extent, if it historically was characteristic for the aircraft, I want it in. I don't want the 150 octane fuelled bare metal polished performance if on the front 100 octane and camouflage were the standard, chopping 50km/h off the top speed. Equipment failures, which I think you're mostly talking about, can also be fun in a game, depending on how it is modelled. 

First one would have to know exactly the level of degradation to work on something. For the Japanese standard aviation gasoline in 1940-1944 period was 92 Octane - used for fighters and attackers only, bombers were supplied with 87 Octane gasoline. Than in 1944-1945 there was also a 95 Octane gasoline only available for Ki-84 units, and not always but rather sometimes. In 1945 there would also be the great decrease in quality and octane levels due to employment of pine root oil for fuel mixtures. How bad it would go ? I saw some values of 85-82 ... but nothing certain. 

 

 

 

It certainly beats 2-minutes-under-full-power-before-your-engine-blows algorithms.

That's true, I have a lot of fun with P-51 in DCS when no exact limit algorithms are employed due to detailed thermodynamics, one can blow the engine even below emergency ratings if only flies too slow to provide sufficient cooling - few times I lost my engine when doing way to much vertical maneuvers a lower speeds against a D-9.  

 

 

 

Edit: Question on sources - are you familiar with the bunrin-do series and what's your opinion about them? 

Yes, I have pretty much whole collection including lately released Ki-21 issue. They are fine, but dont really contain much new data. Some of them like Ki-45, D4Y, Ki-100, Ki-61 or few others are better (containing reprints of manuals, interesting pilot accounts or other interesting things) while others are very repetitive and bring nothing new to the topic.

I could recommend something newer in regard to a few of them like :

- for N1K2-J there is a very good one with detailed problems existing around Homare engine as well as a reprint of N1K2-J provisional manual from 1944 

 

 

 

 

 

- G4M issue which has a very very good computer drawings of all internal sections :

 

 

 

 

 

- Ki-43 while contains no manuals or new technical information brings a lot of high quality pictures of existing aircraft in museums as well as fancy table with production details, showing changes to the airframe during production :

 

 

 

 

 

- Ki-61 has some great drawings as well :

 

 

 

 

 

Other than that you can look for Model Art series http://www.avions-bateaux.com/produit/model-art-avions/1661They are usually having 3-4 chapters, with first 1-2 related to technical details starting from reprinted drawings, engine information, cockpit details and so on, and further 2 related to building the aircraft model and painting it. There are of course older things like Maru Mechanic which still are best option if you look for technical data.

Famous Airplanes of the World series are fine, but I find them lacking newer research findings.  

[JtD]

And if Japanese would have in 1942 a fighter 50-80 km/h faster (impossible with the engines they had at that point, but lets play "what if" scenario), with a greater rate of roll and armament similar to four to six .50 cal machine guns ... would that have an impact ? Problem with "What if" is that you change one variable assuming others will remain same, which would not be the case. And one thing is certain here, that ww2 was in majority a war of attrition. A different fighter built for a different doctrine does not seem to be a factor changing things.

Well, the original point were the totally superior Japanese planes still not gaining the upper hand. My point simply is that had the Japanese planes been as superior as advertised (or not), the outcome of the battles would have been different. The 'what if' is just for illustration. I for one think that had the Japanese fielded N1K's, D4Y's and B6N's instead of what they did, things would have taken a different course. Because these aircraft would have indeed been superior, instead of having a slight edge here and there.

 

That's not exactly how it works. You can apply physics if you have some data, otherwise its closer to guessing.

I spoke about filling gaps, not about recalculating something from scratch. For instance, you don't need to see Homare 21 power curves, because given a couple of data points (which exist), you can draw them yourself.

 

I could recommend something newer in regard to a few of them like

Thanks, next time I'm going on an internet shopping spree I'll keep my eyes open for these.

[Sgt_Joch]

interesting discussion, especially the posts by The Elf.

 

Now on the last point, whether it would have made a difference if the Japanese had a much better and faster fighter in 1942, the answer is no it would not.

 

The war in the pacific was primarily a naval war where the object was to sink ships, so in the air sphere what was important was the bombers/torpedo planes/tactics.

 

The IJN did not lose carrier/naval battles because they had inferior fighters, a fighter is primarily a defensive weapon. The IJN lost because they had no/poor radar, poor fighter control and poor carrier doctrine. Because of that, USN dive bombers were often able to surprise IJN ships with little interference from fighters. Having a fighter that goes 50 kmh faster is not going to make much of a difference if it never spots a target.

 

recommended reading:

 

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/index.htm

[JtD]

It's already been mentioned that speed alone is not what makes up a fighter. Also, my statements refer to the mentioned "superior planes", not just better fighter aircraft. It includes bombers, scouts, torpedo aircraft and so on. And it's not really about the IJN having better planes than it had, but about the IJN having better planes than the USN. The rest's just a spin off.

 

But going with that spin off, just picking one aspect at least Hiromachi and I agree on - insufficient ammo or in other words insufficient sustained firepower on the A6M2. The Midway debacle (from the Japanese point of view) would not have happened the way it did if the defending IJN fighter had had a longer endurance and more ammo per cannon, let alone more cannons. In that sense, an A6M5 carrying twice the ammo would already have gone a long way. N1K's carrying twice the cannon and four times the ammo would probably allow for some of the CAP remaining up high and still achieve the results achieved by the A6M2's against the TBD's. With whatever outcome on spotting and interception an intact CAP would have had on the SBD attack.

Not to mention that the N1K carried as many bombs as the D3A did, allowing for more fighters on board each carrier without any reduction in striking power.

 

The reason why fighters evolved was because performance matters, if everything had been about radar and procedures, they might as well have gone with the A5M right to the end of the war.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

N1K's carrying twice the cannon and four times the ammo would probably allow for some of the CAP remaining up high and still achieve the results achieved by the A6M2's against the TBD's. With whatever outcome on spotting and interception an intact CAP would have had on the SBD attack.

N1K1-J was not suited for carrier operations, high stall speed and very unpleasant accelerated stall make it useless for carrier operations. Part of the reason is weight, part the chosen airfoil - laminar airfoils have some obvious advantages but as far as I'm aware they are not best for carrier borne machine. Even as a lot of issues in regard of handling were fixed eventually (in both N1K1-J and N1K2-J - slightly redesigned airfoil) and large wing area along with high aspect ratio turned it into quite good turn fighter, it still was not suited for that kind of operation. Addition of the tailhook would require strengthening of the tail section which would increase the weight and affect stall speed. 

Besides, fielding 1800-2000 HP engine in 1942 was not possible. Even Americans with F4U did it later. 

 

 

 

Not to mention that the N1K carried as many bombs as the D3A did, allowing for more fighters on board each carrier without any reduction in striking power.

But D3A was a dive bomber, N1K while could carry 250 kg bomb would be limited to skip bombing - same thing was tried with A6M2 fighter-bombers in Marianas Turkey Shoot. It proved to be a waste, they scored no hits and would be a lot more helpful without that bomb and protecting other machines.

 

 

 

But going with that spin off, just picking one aspect at least Hiromachi and I agree on - insufficient ammo or in other words insufficient sustained firepower on the A6M2. The Midway debacle (from the Japanese point of view) would not have happened the way it did if the defending IJN fighter had had a longer endurance and more ammo per cannon, let alone more cannons. In that sense, an A6M5 carrying twice the ammo would already have gone a long way.

 

Fast and obvious way of improving that would be Army-Navy co-operation, Army had a very nice Ho-103 machine cannon used in Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-61 ... that was very light and was interchangeable  with 7.7 mm Type 89 machine gun, so I dont think that would be any problem to put it in A6M2 cowling. A6M2 carried 1360 rounds for  7.7 mgs, how many 12.7s could be placed there ? Certainly as much as Ki-43 had (540) or maybe even more. 

But that of course would require co-operation which was unacceptable in eyes of two branches. 

 

 

 

The reason why fighters evolved was because performance matters, if everything had been about radar and procedures, they might as well have gone with the A5M right to the end of the war. 

Nobody said it does not matter, we however try to point that F4F could stand on its own due to those factors despite being in a great disadvantage (from performance point of view) against A6M2. 

[Sgt_Joch]

of course performance matters, but it is only one piece of the puzzle.

 

 

[TheElf]

The main problem with the Japanese faced from the beginning of the war until around early-mid 1943 was their tactical approach to air combat.  My sources on their war are replete with examples of pilots seeking individual combat rather than using well practiced and coordinated teamwork.  Sure they had and used team tactics plenty, but their basic tendency was to fight man to man rather than zone, to use a basketball analogy.  This gave them an obvious advantage when facing a single F4F, Buffalo, P-40, or P-39, but less so when those opponents were themselves using a mutual support mindset such as Thach and Flatley advocated.

 

It didn't hurt the IJNAF's initially but it did reduce their overall effectiveness.  Additionally pre-war thinking and the martial code of Bushido emphasized a premium on maneuverability in the turn and climb, something the Zero was designed and known for.  Little known fact, the Zero was initially unpopular among a number of experienced A5M4 pilots who had fought in China as they could turn INSIDE the Zero with the Claude.  This independent thinking is evidenced as well in the fact that most Zero pilots tossed their crappy Type 96 ku radios out to save weight, thus even is they wanted to pilots couldn't use voice based team tactics, or talk each other onto one another in a fight for support.  I think they could have been more deadly than they were had they developed a basic 4 ship formation rather than the 3 ship Shotai, which in practice did not occur until somewhere in 1943, I don't have my sources on me at the moment...  

 

It only became apparent that the 4 plane formation (finger 4, schwarm, etc) was the way to go when the few remaining veterans analyzed the successes of the US with slightly inferior planes, widely recognized by both sides, and determined these relative successes were due to the way they were employed.  By the time the IJNAF's and even the IJAAF's (who were qualitatively inferior to the IJN by a small margin) figured this out, the momentum in the Pacific Air war had swung in favor of the Allies, and the IJ forces could no longer put these new tactics into practices with men trained before the war who had China Experience.  

 

These are just SOME of the factors that hurt the statistics in the Early going in against the favor of the Japanese.  The opposite could be said of the Allies, in that recognizing their Aircraft's performance deficiencies, they advanced their technology, and tactical thinking, as well as supporting the men and aircraft with things like radar, fighter direction, and a robust training program that among other things taught high aspect deflection shooting (the typical shot for a hard turning Zero).

 

So, as you can see, when you consider all the "extras" the complexion of the discussion changes, and we understand that while the absolute performance values of opposing aircraft in a 1 v 1 scenario, the ebb and flow of Strategic, tactical, and even individual factors gives us a very different picture from simple Zero vs Wildcat or Zero vs Corsair discussion. 

Edited January 15, 2016 by TheElf

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Little known fact, the Zero was initially unpopular among a number of experienced A5M4 pilots who had fought in China as they could turn INSIDE the Zero with the Claude.

That was an opinion of some Yokosuka Ku, but later on they changed their mind once aircraft received Sakae engine turning into a climbing monster. With the design of the Zeke one has to remember that Navy doctrine was based on major changes, each following design was far more modern than previous - A4N had a top speed of 350 km/h and was a biplane, A5M had top speed of 440 km/h and A6M2 of 533 km/h. Each aircraft was a great step, not only for the pilots but also constructors - in a certain way it was a leap of faith. 

 

This independent thinking is evidenced as well in the fact that most Zero pilots tossed their crappy Type 96 ku radios out to save weight, thus even is they wanted to pilots couldn't use voice based team tactics, or talk each other onto one another in a fight for support.

That's not actually true, some of the units certainly did that, but carrier based pilots were forbidden to do so for instance. Among land based pilots it was usually left up to a certain guy, but even in Tainan Ku some pilots, leaders especially decided to leave those. And later on radio stopped being such an issue once more modern Type 3 Ku 1 model was introduced in 1943.

Besides, its not really a different thinking to P-40 pilots who decided to remove their armored plates. That tendency in New Guinea and China in 1943 was increasing, as their aircraft was not improving much while opposition gained new machines.

 

 I think they could have been more deadly than they were had they developed a basic 4 ship formation rather than the 3 ship Shotai, which in practice did not occur until somewhere in 1943, I don't have my sources on me at the moment...

That is true, 4-man Kutai was officially adopted in 1943.

 

So, as you can see, when you consider all the "extras" the complexion of the discussion changes, and we understand that while the absolute performance values of opposing aircraft in a 1 v 1 scenario, the ebb and flow of Strategic, tactical, and even individual factors gives us a very different picture from simple Zero vs Wildcat or Zero vs Corsair discussion.

 +1 

Edited January 15, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[TheElf]

That was an opinion of some Yokosuka Ku, but later on they changed their mind once aircraft received Sakae engine turning into a climbing monster. With the design of the Zeke one has to remember that Navy doctrine was based on major changes, each following design was far more modern than previous - A4N had a top speed of 350 km/h and was a biplane, A5M had top speed of 440 km/h and A6M2 of 533 km/h. Each aircraft was a great step, not only for the pilots but also constructors - in a certain way it was a leap of faith. 

 

That's not actually true, some of the units certainly did that, but carrier based pilots were forbidden to do so for instance. Among land based pilots it was usually left up to a certain guy, but even in Tainan Ku some pilots, leaders especially decided to leave those. And later on radio stopped being such an issue once more modern Type 3 Ku 1 model was introduced in 1943.

Besides, its not really a different thinking to P-40 pilots who decided to remove their armored plates. That tendency in New Guinea and China in 1943 was increasing, as their aircraft was not improving much while opposition gained new machines.

 

That is true, 4-man Kutai was officially adopted in 1943.

 

 +1 

 

 

That's a bit nitpicky...it happened.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's a bit nitpicky...it happened.

Yes it did, but to a level not exactly known. All I'm certain is that Carrier borne crews had to take those. On the other hand as I said above, land based units were left to make individual choices. Kanoya Ku for instance had the radios left.