Japanese Combat Experience

[parsifal]

KK

Thanks for the reply

But what do you see as the salient weaknesses of the design, and also about my opinion that the lack of armour issue was les significant than some of the other problems....

[lesofprimus]

I agree with my Grandfather who said on many occasion that if the Japanese had utilized self sealing fuel tanks earlier in the War, there would have been alot more Squids and Jarheads swimmin in the Pacific...

IMO that was of more importance than armor plating...

[kool kitty89]

And lack of armor or self sealing tanks isn't an intrisic design flaw, at the outbreak of WWII in Europe almost no a/c had any sort of armor or self sealing tanks. By the BoB most British a/c had both as did the majorety of German fighters. Through 1940 the US was still laging with this and it wasn't until early '41 that this was standardized. (but they But even so, retro-fitting of these to older a/c would not be difficult)


But as to the intrisic design, the early war Japanese a/c (partiularly the fighters) were built very light, while being able to easily withstand the stresses of hard maneuvering, this did not go the same for battle damage. The structure of the Zero Nate and Oscar were easily damaged by even rifle calibur MG's, against .50 cal or 20mm rounds they were shreaded. Even moreso for HE 20mm rounds.

That said, the lack of fire supression was a much bigger vulnerability than the structure or lack of armor. But it was the only one of these that was integral to the design.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

And lack of armor or self sealing tanks isn't an intrisic design flaw, at the outbreak of WWII in Europe almost no a/c had any sort of armor or self sealing tanks. By the BoB most British a/c had both as did the majorety of German fighters. Through 1940 the US was still laging with this and it wasn't until early '41 that this was standardized. (but they But even so, retro-fitting of these to older a/c would not be difficult)


But as to the intrisic design, the early war Japanese a/c (partiularly the fighters) were built very light, while being able to easily withstand the stresses of hard maneuvering, this did not go the same for battle damage. The structure of the Zero Nate and Oscar were easily damaged by even rifle calibur MG's, against .50 cal or 20mm rounds they were shreaded. Even moreso for HE 20mm rounds.

That said, the lack of fire supression was a much bigger vulnerability than the structure or lack of armor. But it was the only one of these that was integral to the design.

Excellent points! Also keep in mind that all these items were viewed as "nice-aties" by many designers of the day - if they didn't feel that way they would of incorporated them to begin with (IMO) but also keep in mind that omitting these things there was another benefit - $$$$$$

Now sometimes a company might want to be able to sell and aircraft and make it cost effective and omit those nice-aties - case in point from the same manufacturer that built one of the most robust aircraft of WW2....

[Soren]

What a/c is that ? Looks like an a/c from Vought.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

What a/c is that ? Looks like an a/c from Vought.

Curtiss Wright CW-21B

[kool kitty89]

In many ways that a/c was like its Japanese opponents, highly maneuverable, excelent power loading and wing loading and very good climb rate. This at the expense of fire supression and pilot protection. But one other major difference is that it also lacked the range of the Japanese fighters which was so important in this theater, but as it was meant to be a interceptor it had decent range, better than european contemporaries. (Spit, Hurricane, 109) But not as good as the P-36/P-40. (partiularly comparing those w/out self sealing tanks or armor)

An interesting design though.

And Soren I think you're thinking of the Vought V-141 - fighter or Vought V-143 - fighter developed from the Northrop 3A - fighter

[OGGleep]

Is there even a debate , that the Zero was a superior dogfighter/fighter vs the Wildcat?

Everything I have seen about the subject has landed on the side of the Zero, with absolutley no debate. The results were always attributed to factors that had nothing to do with the AC in question, such as tactics, radios etc.

You guys clearly know your stuff, and what was posted in our forums challeged everything I had picked up in my casual readings. Wondering if it is worth researching a bit more.

[kool kitty89]

For performance it's the Zero for sure. In a flat out close quarters dogfight or even a large furball, the Zero would have an almost complete advqantage. But if one was bounced the F4F had a chance, while the Zero had almost none. But the Wildcat's advantages were not in dogfighting performance.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I don't know. There was this story about a dogfight over Guadalcanal where the Wildcat was matching the Zero roll for roll, they kept rolling and rolling.

[parsifal]

Well, not every time were the japanese able to get the upper hand. Also, Japanese zeroes over Guadacanal were operating at a disadavantage, because they were at extended rangee from their base in Rabaul. they were often carrying drop tanks, or the pilot was tired, or both

[kool kitty89]

The roll rate for the Zero was not all that good, even at low speeds, at ~200 mph it was about the same as the Wildcat and at 270 mph the F4F started to get an advantage. The Zero's ailerons were virtually immobile above 300 mph (pretty bad at 250 mph as well) similar to the early Spitfire.

The Oscar (Ki-43) is another story with ~160 degrees/sec at 150-200 mph, and kept it much better than the Zero at medium-high speeds. (300 mph range)

[renrich]

The A6M in combat with the F4F4 was superior in all flying characteristics except at high speeds. In a dogfight(angles) fight the Zero had most of the advantages and it would also in an energy fight. The tactics adopted by the USN relied on mutual support and were essentially defensive in nature. If one can get a copy of Lundstrom's books, "The First Team" and "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" there is an exhaustive study of the USN and the IJN tactics, training and experience from the beginning of the war to near the end of 1942. The early IJN pilots were well trained and some had pre war combat experience. The attrition rate for them was high, especially at Midway. The USN pilots were well trained also particularly in deflection shooting and once they got combat experience and adopted tactics strictly designed for the A6M, they held their own.

[renrich]

The CW21(Demon) had a very good rate of climb but was very lightly armed. A few got into combat for the Dutch in Java but did not last long.

[kool kitty89]

The CW-21B carried 2x fusalage mounted .50 cal guns with 1x .30 cals in each wing, not too bad. This was the latest and most used model. That model also used 1,000 hp R-1820-G-5 engine and had inward retracting gear opposed to the rearward retracting gear of earlier versions. (same mechanism as the P-36/P-40) With a takeoff weight of 4,500 lbs it had a wing loading of under 26 lb/ft2 and power/weight of over .22 hp/lb

Though the initial climb rate was probably very good, the 5,000 or 4,500 ft/min sometimes quoted seem a bit excessive, and 3,500 ft/min is probably a much closer value, which is still excelent. (similarly the A6M2's climb rate is sometimes given as 4,500 ft/min, it was more like 3,100-3,500 ft/min as well, similar to the Ki 43-II) The higher figures are probably with zoom. (or for the Zero, maybe in US tests with 100 octane gasoline)