Rising Sun warbirds

syscom3 · 08-07-2005, 02:47 PM

The Zero fighter in the first several months of the war in the Pacific was a great fighter. Soon outclassed, but none the less, in the hands of a good pilot, it was deadly. Perhaps its greatest assett was its tremendous range. In 1942, the allied planes could not hope to even come close to its range. In the Pacific, the distances are vast. The short ranges of supposedly "great" fighters like the Spit and the -109 made them essentialy useless.

Ive added a couple of pix for your viewing pleasure

FLYBOYJ · 08-07-2005, 03:20 PM

As posted in earlier threads, I don't consider the Zero a great fighter. What elevated the Zero was it's alleged "mystic" abilities mainly through poor intellegence and propaganda, which were soon countered by tactics and teamwork. It was shown in an earlier post the F4F had nearly a 4 to 1 kill ratio over the Zero, much of that had to do with tactics and pilot skill.

Bring a Zero into a dogfight above 300 mph and it's mystical abilities were erased......

syscom3 · 08-07-2005, 03:55 PM

A kill is a kill. Untill their mystique wore off, they were a great fighter.

FLYBOYJ · 08-07-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

A kill is a kill. Untill their mystique wore off, they were a great fighter.

You're right, a kill is a kill - and the Zero was shot down at a rate to almost 4 to 1 by an inferior aircraft!

The only thing that could be bestowed on the Zero was the myth created by early war lack of intellegence. It was easily defeated at speeds over 300 mph, had heavy controls in high speeds, and the lack of self-sealing tanks was abundantly indicated. It it did have great range but wasn't even the most maneuvable Japanese fighter!

Maybe you're right - the Zero was a great fighter - great for establishing myths, propaganda and it turned out to make a great target.

Aggie08 · 08-07-2005, 07:38 PM

What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...

plan_D · 08-07-2005, 08:15 PM

I would just like to comment on syscoms attack on the Spitfire calling it "supposedly 'great'" - I would like to point out that the war against the Japanese wasn't just fought in the seas of the Pacific. It was also fought in China-Burma-India, where the Spitfire and other short range British interceptors provided invaluble service against Japanese aircraft.

They may have had a short range but they were amazing machines and the Japanese had nothing to match up to the Spitfire over Burma. It achieved a 8:1 kill ratio over the IJAAF.

The British also stationed eight Spitfires 150 miles behind (yes, BEHIND) enemy lines during Operation Thursday. They fended off several Japanese attacks on their airfield until being told to withdraw as they were taking up space for the Dakotas.

As I said earlier in the post, the war wasn't fought all over massive distances of sea. It was also fought over jungles, mountains, paddy fields and swamp marshes. And even in a time the Hurricane had become obselete in Europe it still stood up to the IJAAF with increasing effectiveness.

I know the IJAAF didn't use the Zero but it's just a show that the British fighters were able to fight the Japanese air power with their inferior range aircraft.

FLYBOYJ · 08-07-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aggie08

What was the best Japanese plane of the war in your opinion? This sounds sort of like a new post but since we're already on the topic...

I think the "Tojo" (KI-44) was their best interceptor - they gave any bombers that came their way (including the B-29) problems. The Tony was a good aircraft as well - it had armor....

The Frank KI-84 was probably their best over-all fighter in terms of speed, firepower and range.

syscom3 · 08-07-2005, 09:29 PM

The Spit was legendary in European theater, but essentially useless in the Pacific in the key years of 1942 and 1943. Too top it off, the CBI was a sideshow compared to what was happening in the Solomons and New Guinie. Dont forget that the Japanese airforce in 1944 was a shell compared to its former self in 1942.

The airwar in the Pacific was far different than the European airwar. Range was foremost the key to a successfull fighter in the Pacific theater. The Zero could fly non stop from Rabaul to Guadalcanal. Could any allied plane other than the Lightning be able to do that?

In Britain, the Spit was able to use radar info to excellent use by being in the right place at the right time to intercept the Germans. In the Pacific, untill late 1942, many allied bases didnt have that radar luxury other than to give a general warning to takeoff and get out of the way. I doubt the Spits could have done anything at Port Moresby or Guadalcanal. They would have run out of fuel by the time the got to altitude and caught up with the Japanese forces.

plan_D · 08-07-2005, 10:16 PM

I see we have another non-thinker on our hands. The CBI is a sideshow in modern thinking because the CBI is a forgotten theatre. The Pacific and Europe get all the praise but the CBI contributed a lot to the entire war effort against the Japanese. Much more than you believe.

The Spitfire didn't just use early warning, it was a more than capable interceptor with remarkable dogfighting abilities. The Spitfire didn't even arrive in the CBI until 1943, when it did arrive however it came as a shock to the IJAAF as it could dance around any Japanese plane at high speeds.

When it did arrive, the RAF had a more than capable fighter to handle the IJAAF. The ranges weren't a problem in the CBI, the engineers were excellent and built airfield after airfield. The airfield I mentioned 150 miles behind enemy lines lacked any early warning radar, yet the Spitfires managed to intercept incoming Japanese planes time and time again.

The Seafire was also a capable carrier defence aircraft. More than enough to intercept the Fw-200 "Kondor" spotting the convoys for the German U-Boats.

Don't dismiss the CBI just because the U.S had little part in it. The Spitfires and Hurricanes provided invaluble service to the largest British Army of the war, the "Forgotten 14th".

Range was important in the Pacific but the plane had to be able to handle itself against the opposition. The Zero might have out-ranged the USN fighters in the Pacific but the USN fighters were superior. The F4F Wildcat was able to overcome the Zero with simple tactics.

The Zero was a long-ranged paper airplane.

syscom3 · 08-07-2005, 11:58 PM

The bulk of Japanese resources went to the SW and Central Pacific. What ever happened in the CBI was meaningless. It was called the forgotten theater for a reason.... it had no strategic value. Even if the allies had abandoned the whole area, nothing about the war would be different. The amount of material and personel the Japanese commited to the SW Pacific showed they knew what was more important.

In 1943, the only shock the Japnese pilots had was not over a few Spitfires in Burma (whose short range meant they were incapable of offensive operations) but of US and ANZAC Lightnings, Corsairs, P40's and Hellcats that were escorting heavy bombers at long ranges (for 1943) throughout the SW Pacific.

Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-08-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.

If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this.

I agree the Ki-84 was the best for Japan.

FLYBOYJ · 08-08-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Call the Zero a paper airplane if you will, but Im sure hundreds of shotdown airmen would like to tell you something different. The Zero was a good plane, and throughout 1942 when the Japanese still had good pilots, they proved time and time again they were deadly.

Lets see... 4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F

I think THOUSANDS of shotdown Japanese pilots may disagree with you.

syscom3 · 08-08-2005, 11:11 AM

4 to 1 in favor of the F4F
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
8 to 1 in favor of the P-38
- Only a couple of planes were lost to the P38. Most P38 squadrons werent into the thick of things untill early 1943
3 to 1 in favor of the P-40 (excluding the AVG)
- from Dec 1941 through Dec 1942, things were still 1-1
10 to 1 in favor of the F4U
- Irrelevant cause the F4U wasnt in combat untill summer 1943
19 to 1 in favor of the F6F
- Irrelevant cause the F6F wasnt in combat untill early 1943

"If the Zero was so good then why did they lose all there good pilots in it then by 1942 since you say they had no good pilots and why did they lose them all to "inferior aircraft"? I just dont buy this. "
Every AF has attrition rates. The Japanese were even worse than the Germans in a pilot training program, and eventually as the pilots were shot down or incapacitated from the tropical diseases, they lost most of their experienced pilots. If you read my posts, I said for the first year of the airwar, the Zero was a great fighter.

Jan 1943 was the tipping point for the airwar. The Zero had a good run against the first generation of allied aircraft (just like the Germans had a good run against the Russians in 1941). But after the fall of Guadalcanal, the Japanese were running low on experienced pilots and were soon to go up against hordes of superior American planes.

plan_D · 08-08-2005, 12:47 PM

You obviously do not have a clue about the CBI, syscom. You have provided perfect evidence of that. The CBI had all the strategic value for the Japanese, the CBI was exactly where the Japanese resources were coming from.

They had captured Singapore, Burma, Malaya and Indonesia to secure vital oil, coal and rubber for their war effort. The shock came to the Japanese in the form of the Spitfire over Burma. The Spitfire was perfectly capable of offensive operations over the CBI because the distances were not too great, the Japanese and British forces were face to face all the time.

It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence.

Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me.

The Zero was a paper airplane with only two decent characteristics, long range and low-speed turning. It wasn't capable in a fight, the USN developed simple tactics to defeat it with the Wildcat.

If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were.

The reason the CBI was forgotten was because the ETO and MTO had all the news as it was closer to British home. The reason the CBI is forgotten now is because people like you do not care to read up about it.

I have the benefit of hindsight over those pilots that were being attacked by an aircraft shrouded in mystery. If I could go back and tell all those people what the Zero was really like, they would agree it was a paper airplane.

syscom3 · 08-08-2005, 04:50 PM

"Do not bother me with the China-Burma-India theatre, as you do not have a clue on the issue. Go read about it and then come back to me."
- the more you speak, the more ignorant you show me you are.

The riches of Indonesia and Mayasia were located a thousand miles south of Burma. If the IJA thought the CBI theater as important, they would have commited more units there and KEPT them there

No matter how much spin you put on it, the CBI was strategically irrelevent. Just like the Aleutians..... just Like Italy (after the Normandy landings).

"It was nothing like the PTO, it was a land theatre not an ocean theatre. The Japanese only sent their IJN to defend against the USN, that's not strategic value that's an active defence."
- Of course you know that the IJN had resposibility for Rabaul and the IJA responsibility for northern New Guinie? It was IJA air units that were stripped from CBI to reinforce the more important theaters. And of course you know the japanese were still attacking allied bases throughout the SW Pacific well into the spring of 1943. I guess thats an active defense?

And of course, I suppose all of the P39/P41/Wildcat pilots who somehow ended up under the 'chute or in a crater on the ground (or splash in the ocean) were shot down by an inferior fighter.

"If Pearl Harbour had a squadron of Spitfire IIAs stationed there, the IJN would have been going up against designed interceptors with much superior dogfighting abilities than the Zero. The Spitfires could have climbed to the IJNs height with ease and been squatting them like the flies they really were."
- All the Japanese had to do was fly around for several minutes and then your vaunted Spits would need to land to refuel, heheheheheh.