How good was Japanese aviation?

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

This was from an earlier post...


For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese.

The big problem with such figures is that the kills are claims. The actual Japanese losses would be much lower; according to the references above across a range of early campaigns Japanese air combat losses were only 25-40% of what the Allies claimed. Also it's not clear those kills exclude Japanese bombers. And actually going the other way, the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then, P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March, and P-39's didn't enter combat, in New Guinea, till late April.

Anyway, I believe the only way to assess combat success is with *both* sides' records of losses in the same combats. That's what the references I mentioned above do for most of 1941-42 Allied v Japanese fighter combats, and according to that the P-39 and P-40 had a fighter v fighter real, not claimed, exchange ratio of about 1:3 (against them, that is) through the middle of '42. That's also not including AVG or its USAAF successor unit, the 23rd FG, in China. The FEAF fighter combat was mostly against A6M's, just a few cases v Army Nates, none v. Oscars which weren't encountered ex-AVG/China by the US until 1943. The P-38, as well as better tactics, numbers and basic strategic situation, brought the USAAF to (joining with the USN/USMC in) parity against mainly the JNAF in the Solomons by the first half of 1943, and the USAAF alone really was beating the JAAF alone in New Guinea, in increasingly one sided fashion (but still not what was claimed at the time) by the second half of 1943.

Joe

[JoeB]

double post

[Gnomey]

That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for my take on Japanese aviation it was similar to the Italians they had some good planes but they never produced them in the numbers that the Allies produced their planes in (except for the Zero and perhaps the Oscar). Both countries had good planes near the end of the(ir) war but it was all a case of to little to late.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Gnomey

That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.

Joe

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JoeB

Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.

Joe

The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.

The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).

There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.

It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.

Joe

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by JoeB

The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).

There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.

It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.

Joe

Here's the other link - also not the admitted losses...

United States Army Air Forces in World War II


Agree totally - but one thing about the "claims." They elevated in numbers at a time when the Japanese started to take heavy losses - late 1942 early 1943, and the claims and actual losses compiled somewhat at a proportional rate. The common denominator there was the introduction in numbers of the P-38. The "claims" may give a distorted picture and if you take them for even 70% of their reliability it still shows the pounding the Japanese were taking. But going back to the earlier discussion, it also shows that even in mid/ late summer 1942 with their inferior P-39s and P-40, the FEAF did hold their own against the Japanese and their nimble Zero and Oscar...

[iart7]

Either way you look at the war could not have been won without each other. Where would the US have based there bombers out of to bomb Germany with had it not been for England? What would the Russians have done with out lend lease? Would the US had been able to sustain a Night and Day bombing campaign without the British?

That's why it was so important for there to be a dedicated group of "allies" in the War on Iraq. Except for the British, most allies have not been willing to place their troops' lives on the line. If the allies could have guarded the borders between Syria and Iran, the insurgency could not have corrupted the war effort after the "war was won". I also believe the WMD's were moved to Syria. Sure Bush made mistakes and this was one of the worst mistakes made, but WHERE WERE THE ALIES? It's not like terrorism is not a world-wide concern, is it?

That said, the best Pacific fighter was definately the HELLCAT!

Did someone mention the fact that the captured Zero gave Americans valuable information about Zero's dive characteristics (could not pull to the right or left?)

iArt


=============================================
from GLIDER:

I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.

No thanks to the Spanish in the War on Terror... remember what they did after a terror bomb of their train system? Three days after the attacks, the presiding Spanish government was defeated in ... about a terrorist attack in Madrid. All it would take is an Al Qaeda attack in Berlin or Frankfurt and perhaps the Germans would withdraw their troops? Maybe not, but what Spain did was concede the war to the enemy. Imagine if the Germans retreated from France in WWII when resistance fighters blew up a train station or railroad track? UNTHINKABLE ...

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by JoeB

the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then,

Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.

Originally Posted by JoeB

P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March,

True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin, and if this list is including non combat losses, I believe alot of US P-40's were written off in Australia due to training mishaps and long ferry flights under taken by in-experianced pilots.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Joe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.

According to the site those are air-to-air losses only.[/QUOTE]United States Army Air Forces in World War II

[Wildcat]

Interesting! wish there was a site like that for the RAAF.

PS how good do those Hellcats up there look in Australian markings
Hmm if only.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by iart7

If the allies could have guarded the borders between Syria and Iran, the insurgency could not have corrupted the war effort after the "war was won".

Do you really believe that? We would not have been able to contain the insurgency any better with our allies or not. The border is too porous. Trust me I know I spent 14 months in Iraq when I was in the Army.

Originally Posted by iart7

I also believe the WMD's were moved to Syria.

I agree...

Originally Posted by iart7

Sure Bush made mistakes and this was one of the worst mistakes made, but WHERE WERE THE ALIES? It's not like terrorism is not a world-wide concern, is it?

I disagree. Iraq was not the fight of any one else but the US. There is more to the story than you or I know. Would you want the US going to fight in a war between Saudi Arabia and one of our allies just because you felt that the US was there ally. See what I am saying...

Originally Posted by iart7

All it would take is an Al Qaeda attack in Berlin or Frankfurt and perhaps the Germans would withdraw their troops?

From someone living in the Federal Republic of Germany I guarantee you this would not happen. The only reason that they are not doing more in Afganistan as we speak is because of the ruling party. Pulling out though they would never do.


Okay now having said all this. Lets get this back on topic. Iraq has nothing to do with Japanese Aviation and this is not the polotics thread.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.

True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin

The Langley was carrying 32 P-40's and they were destroyed by enemy aircraft, though not in air combat, in February. At Darwin Feb 19 10, 4 were at altitude several others just taking off, but say 7 air combat, plus another that engaged a Mavis flyingboat Feb 15 in mutually destructive combat. In Java I count 1 P-40 in air combat Feb 4, 4+2 on grd Feb 5, 1 on 2/18, 7 on 2/19, 3 on 2/20, 2 on 2/21, so total 20 combat losses. So that totals 62 losses 'to enemy a/c' (w/ P-40 in air or not) including Langley but is too small without it. 44 is probably just wrong.

As long as analyzing Feb '42, 24 of those P-40's were downed in the air by Japanese fighters (all Navy, all A6M, no loss in one engagement v. JAAF Nates, and 2 losses were to bomber defensive fire, rest to enemy a/c on the ground or aboard ship). In turn the P-40's downed 2 A6M's and a Ki-27 for sure; they claimed 15 A6M's and 4 Ki-27's among Japanese fighters (they downed around 8 non fighters and only overclaimed about 2:1 against those). Very tough situation, claims don't give much clue, especially fighter-fighter. The source for actual incidents is Shores "Bloody Shambles". It's not gteed the Japanese accountings are 100% inclusive but seemed to reliably include pilots killed and in such long range ops, w/ no parachutes or rescue service, there were few if any destroyed Japanese fighters with surviving pilots in that particular situation. Later on that discrepancy, pilot v planes losses, causes more questions in the accounting.

That was about the nadir of the P-40's career v the JNAF. The units in the Phillipines ironically had done better in air combat although losses on the ground quickly reduced them to ineffectiveness; and then defending Australia the P-40 did better in spring and summer '42, but still the exchange ratio according to reported losses was heavily in the A6M's favor in total for 1942. P-39's entering combat late April in New Guinea did a pretty consistent 1:3 against the JNAF fighters that spring and summer, though worse than that in their minor participation at G'canal where the tactical situation called for high altitude fighters. Parity or any real success for the P-39/40 against the A6M lay in 1943, and when supported by P-38's (and F4U's in the Solomons).

Joe

[FLYBOYJ]

Good information but are relying on "Bloody Shambles" for thr 1:3 rato for the P-39 in new Guinea? The air to air ratio from the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II does not break out kills/ losses by type. When combined with the P-40 the claims/ kill ratio comes out to 1.43 to 1 aside from the errors shown.

Here are the two tables...

Army Air Forces in World War II

Army Air Forces in World War II

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Good information but are relying on "Bloody Shambles" for thr 1:3 rato for the P-39 in new Guinea? [/url]

No, it only covers to the end of the first set of Japanese offensives in that area around the beginning of March. For New Guinea I'm comparing the Japanese losses given in Sakaida "Winged Samurai" w/ the US claims and losses given in Hess "Pacific Sweep".

The 8th FG (P-39) claimed 45 enemy aircraft April 30-June 1 1942, 37 of them Zeroes, losing 26 P-39's in air combat almost all to Zeroes. They were the only Allied fighter unit at Port Moresby having relieved 75sdn RAAF (P-40) when they arrived. The unit opposing them was the Tainan Air Group, A6M's, with suffered 11 pilots KIA in the same period. So actually I misrecalled 1:3 before looking back at notes, sorry, it's more like perhaps 1:2 considering in this case some of the combats were over the Japanese airfields and they could have lost some planes w/ surviving pilots, though it's not mentioned in any specific accounts I know of.

Going on to P-40 in defence of Darwin from March22 -August 23 1942, for completeness, the sources are Kagero series book "3rd/202nd Air Group" v. again Hess. The 49th FG claimed 33 Zeroes for the loss of 18 P-40's in air combat, all or almost all to Zeroes though also trying to shoot down bombers. The 3rd Air Group was escorting the raids and recorded 8 actual losses.

Back in Philippines source is Bartsch "Doomed at the Start". There weren't that many air combats, the Japanese mainly neutralized the US fighters destroying them on the ground, thereafter mostly the JAAF fought there. In the first two big attacks 11 P-40's and a P-35 were downed or written off to air combat, v 7 A6M's (3rd and Tainan) lost to all causes, at least one to a PBY's defensive fire and probably at least a few to AA while strafing, nobody can know at this point. The A6M's got another P-40 later, and surprisingly P-35's got an A6M December 24 in return for one P-35 damaged beyond repair. Complete US claims aren't given. The small remaining force of P-40's had a number of encounters with the JAAF Nates until near the end, but the book uses a JAAF source without complete day by day losses. But, P-40 v. Nate in the Philippines seemed about even.

The 3rd and Tainan Air Groups were also the IJN opponents over Java; the February Darwin raid was the exception, being carrier based A6M's. The Tainan was worn down over G'canal from August, though as a unit it outscored the Marine/Navy F4F's (they in turned outscored other Zero units to end 1942 about 1:1 v A6M's). The 3rd didn't see heavy combat again until 1943 when renumbered 202nd it downed about 26 Spitfire V's (air combat, a few could have been by bombers but it's *doesn't* count the heavy Spit fuel/mechanical losses) over Darwin that spring-fall in return for 3-4 A6M's, better than it had done against P-40's over Darwin the previous year, counter to the general trend of the air war. Source, both sides, is Price "Spitfire Mark V Aces", also the Kagero book.

Joe