How good was Japanese aviation?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think that to many people will agree with you on some of your points.

As for the copy cat thing I do agree with you, that distinction goes to the Russians. However even that Duraluminium did not help the Zero and it still got beat.

I do not agree the Ki-84 was the best aircraft of WW2. Not when compared to the Spit, P-47, and Fw-190. The Ki-84 never reached its full potential do to a lack of construction materials and poor production quality. Performance wise it was not the greatest either compared to the Spit, P-47, and Fw-190 either except for its range.

Crew: one, pilot
Length: 9.93 m (32 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 11.23 m (36 ft 10 in)
Height: 3.38 m (11 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 21 m² (226 ft²)
Empty: 2,665 kg (5,864 lb)
Loaded: 3,616 kg (7,955 lb)
Maximum takeoff: 3,898 kg (8,576 lb)
Powerplant: 1x Nakajima Ha-45-21 18-cylinder radial, 1,485 kW (1,990 hp)

Performance
Maximum speed: 627 km/h (392 mph)
Range: 2,155 km (1,347 miles)
Service ceiling: 10,500 m (34,450 ft)
Rate of climb: 833 m/min (2,734 ft/min)
Wing loading: 172 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/Mass: 0.41 kW/kg (0.25 hp/lb)

Armament
2x 12.7 mm Type 1 machine guns in fuselage
2x 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wings
2x 250 kg (551 lb) bombs

Production
Total production: 3,514 examples
3,288 by Nakajima
94 by Mansyu

Japan had some great pilots too however I would not call them the best pilots of WW2. I do not see any distinction that can compare them to the aces of Germany, The US, and England.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

exept perhaps in terms of ferocity, they were defending their homeland and honour, they were defending a huge mility tradition as well as their homes and families......

[plan_D]

The pilots were good, there's no doubt about that but their main advantage was the Western ignorance of their culture and design. Had the Western world taken the Japanese seriously from the start, they would have never achieved anything near what they did.

The Japanese air forces also lacked tactical thinking, they were too close to the samurai code. They fought as individuals expecting to fight against individuals.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed with the points both you made. The Japanese releid to much on code and tradition and they let that get in there way, however they were good pilots that is true.

[Glider]

It should also be remembered that the Japs were not compared against the best available. In timeline re introduction into service the Zero was most similar to the FW190. Good as the Zero is, if I had the choice of going to war in a Zero or a 190 it would be the 190 every time.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed. The 190 had better armament, more armour, great performance and was quite maneuverble. Where as the Zero had speed and maneuverable. Id go with the 190 also over a Zero.

[plan_D]

Certainly against the British forces the Japanese aviation went against second hand and out-dated equipment. The IJAAF or IJN didn't meet the Spitfire until 1943!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Again that is because Englands focus was Germany.

[bogy]

The best pilots in WW2 was:
British, German, Romanian and Japanese.

I'm sorry but the American pilots was good because they are in large numbers. The supremacy was 20 / 1 in 1944.

In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!

In 1944, 23 august the Americans came here, in Romania to take the American prisoners buck. When they landing, our pilots was sidereted: American pilots don't now how to fly. They " ups a Daisy"!

Our very best pilot, Bazu Cantacuzino - 84 aerial victory - have make a historic flight in Italy, Fogia with his Me 109 G10 taking Colonel Gun with him, to take him there.
When Hi's arrive there, the colonel want to fly the Messerschmidt. Hi try but hi crash the aircraft. Our pilot try to give them some advises but hi don't lessened. OK with that but now the problem was that Bazu have no plane. The Americans give them one P51B - name "Sleepy Anne".

Bazu make a spectacular take of and make a impressive acrobatic demonstration. Note that it was for the first time in flight with a P51!!!

About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.

About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!

Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed. In aerial battles both speed and maneuverability are important. With speed, Me 109 can accept or not the dog-fight and dictate the fight conditions!

Now, about A6m-Zero. The American pilots was advise that too not accept a dog-fight with Japanese zero! In 1942, after the Midway U.S Army captured a A6M Zero in good conditions. They take the plane in California and make some test. In conclusion, at that time the U.S.A.A.F. have no plane capable to sustain a dog-fight with Japanese zero. So, the Americans H.Q. Make some directives and one of that directive say that the American fighter will not engage directly the Japanese zero, they will attack from Hy and they will open fire and going down - because zero was a very light aircraft, Japanese will can't going down to catch American aircraft. The official recommendation was that the Japanese zero will be hunted with "passing throw"!

In 1942 - 1943 it was a really "Zero Phobia"! In 1943, when F6F Hellcat was introduce in service, Japanese introduce in service the A6M5 52 models - Zero. That model was equal with F6F - Hellcat!

The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by bogy

In aerial battle over Romania, in 1944 they have a supremacy of 15 - 20 / 1. But with all that supremacy, Romanian pilots shot down Americans!

Your point being, Germans shot down Americans too even though the US had numerical supremacy, but that does not mean the American pilots were not good. American pilots recieved great training had aircraft just as good.

Originally Posted by bogy

About Fw 190, yes, it was one of the best WW2 aircraft, in special "long-nose variant" - Fw 190 D9.

So are you saying that the Fw-190A was not good and the Fw-190D was was? Yes the Dora was better but the Anton was one of the best aircraft.

Originally Posted by bogy

About Spitfire, that something not cert. In time there are a lot of discussions: Me 109 or Spitfire. One thing is clear: Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because of them, because of one tactical mistake and because they have no information's about enemy!

Please tell me you are not serious that the Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of the Spitfire. The Luftwaffe lost it for several reasons and none of them because of the Spitfire. They lost it because they changed there strategy from destroying the Luftwaffe to destroying London, big Mistake! The lost it because of the Hurricane not because of the Spitfire. The Spitfire was numerically strong eneogh to change the outcome of the BoB. Yes the Spitfire played a role in the BoB but even the British will tell you that the Hurricane was the real hero of the BoB. Thirdly they lost it because of the British Radar network. It allowed crews to stay on the ground and then be vectored to the Enemy.

Originally Posted by bogy

Both airplane are sensible equal:Me 109 have speed but not maneuverability and Spitfire have maneuverability but not speed.

Both the Spitfire and the Bf-109E were pretty equal in speed. The difference was the Bf-109E had bad low speed maneavuerabilty but at high speeds she would turn with the best of them.

Originally Posted by bogy

The American won the war in Pacific earlier because at Midway Japanese make a big and fatal mistake.
The American won that war anyway because they are a big economic force, they had a lot of aircraft, tanks, ships and resources. not because they are more good warrior then Japanese or Germans.

Okay first of all the Americans did not win the war. The Allies won the war together. Each making there own very big contributions. The Americans were just as good at fighting than any other force out there!

[evangilder]

There was also no model of Zero that was an equal to the Hellcat. Especially when it comes to the ability to sustain damage. The Zero did have the manueverability edge below 275 MPH, but above that, the zero does not have the capability to manuever. There is nothing wrong with the tactics used to battle the Zero, it was effective and it worked.

[plan_D]

The U.S pilots were only fearful of the Zero because they knew nothing about it. It wasn't an equal of the F6F Hellcat, the F4F was enough to deal with a Zero. If you had two F4F Wildcats against four A6M Zero, the Wildcats using the 'thatch and weave' would come out on top almost everytime.

You cannot possibly state where the best pilots came from without taking into account the feeling of a nation and the state it was in. The U.S and Britain were free democractic nations with some thought for their troops lives and well-being, they didn't grind them into the ground. That is why the two major democracies don't seem to have high killing pilots. On top of that there were more Western Allied pilots, giving each their own share while the higher scoring aces weren't so far ahead.

Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union cared little about the lives of their own people, it was fight to the death or until you win. They were flying massive sortie numbers and they would often willingly ram other aircraft!

The U.S ground troops weren't very good, no but that didn't matter. The U.S knew perfectly well how to use what it had, a massive economy. It didn't bother spending time training it's troops to the abilities of the German soldiers (who were the best in World War 2), it used it's massive economic backing to perfection by the doctrine of 'fire supremecy'.
If any blocking situation was encountered massive artillery and air support could be brought down on the target to wipe it clean of enemy before the massive amounts of armour moved in. All German commanders knew that W.Allied artillery was vastly superior to their own by weight of numbers alone.

Admittedly in a lot of circumstances the W.Allied forces would have suffered less and moved on much quicker had they been more aggressive but overall the war was won with little loss to the W.Allies. They played the war well.

If you want to start going on about how poor the U.S troops were, try looking at the Romanian troops at Stalingrad...

The Allies won the war, not the U.S. It was a joint effort and without any one of the 'Big Three' the war could have turned out much different.

[evangilder]

Agreed, plan_d. It was a group effort. The Americans didn't win the war. America was only part of the overall effort on behalf of ALL the allies that led to final victory.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Some people dont realize the contributions made by each country. Each had there own things to give and each what they were "experts" in. 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? Each made great contributions.

And on your comment Plan_D about the Romanian troops. I agree and besides who was it that switched sides as soon as the going got tough for them: US, England, or Romania. If I recall it was the Romanians that left the Axis once they saw that the Allies were going to win. Jumpin on the old band wagon!

[cheddar cheese]

Italy done the same. Damn smart, them Italians