Who had the better aircraft?
IJN started at a better point but languished, IJA started worse but grew better in the long run.
>>65527148Whoever had the KI83
>>65527148IJA by default. Making an aircraft carrier-capable adds weight and complication.
>>65527148Were teh small amounts of late war IJN/IJA fighters the monsters that games make them seem like or why they actually as good as they say. Compared to the P38J/LNot trying to start a fight here, just actually curious.
>>65527148>File : .pngOf those two the Ki-84 was better.N1K2-J was only 'good' by sequences of Kawanishi developments, of a mid-wing floatplane. It was an adequate land based fighter and interceptor but the Ki-84 and later carrier-based A7M2 mogged it.>>65527162>IJA started worseKi-43 particularly the -IIa and later variants were no slouchcbut yes compared to e.g. the 1940 A6M2 <--that was the world's best carrier-based fighter at that moment in time
>>65527227>Ki-43I think the majority of them were armed with only a pair of 7.7mm guns to start with, but yes they started fixing that later. Still, it should have been obvious in '41 that wasn't acceptable
>>65527222>video gamers>small amounts of late war IJN/IJA fighters the monsters that games make them seem like or why they actually as good as they sayIt's the same phenomenon (cf. WoT) as the later German Tiger tanks; they're famous and exploits widely discussed, even written about but *far* out of proportion to the actual impact in Japan (or Germany's) favor the quantity or impact those weapon systems actually had.Japan after 1943 was in a dire situation just as Germany same-time was. Decimated by U.S. Navy submarine warfare that crippled its economic and resource materiel supplies (just as by 1944 Allied heavy bombers were pounding homeland Germany to smithereens). Japan aircraft production output peaked in 1944 even though the factories' employment continued to grow during 1945 (because by that late date B-29 raids were taking a severe toll)Yes the later post-A6M5 Japan fighters were tougher opponents but the Hellcats and late P-38J/L U.S.fighters dominated the Pacific skies by mid-1944; and also by the last year of the war experienced Japanese pilots were in short supply. These are parallel attrition and industrial issues that affected the Luftwaffe
>>65527238>acceptableNot a question of that. In 1939-40 many world fighter aircraft were similarly armed, even the early Bf 109s that served 1937-38 in Spain had two-blade propellers. The early Hayabusa Ki-43 was in total design keeping with what was the bench standard in 1939-40. With the vast head-snappingly fast acceleration of aviation technology (and the fast-evolving war air combat experience) during the *specific time interval* 1940-1943<---, all militaries and aircraft manufacturers were breathlessly scrambling to keep pace. It was a unique time in the history of human civilization and technology : nothing else in all thousands of years of human history comes close in terms of the advances and changes made on a massive scale, along with the effort and resources devoted to it *in such a short 3 - 4 year timeframe*. Unprecedented.It was after 1941-42 that both in the northern Europe air war, and in Pacific lessons were learned on both allied and axis sides about what modern air combat would from then consist of; which aircraft and airframes were most survivable; which gun armament was most effective-destructive; the value of self sealing fuel tanks; etc.It's only with historical hindsight that these engineering-based factors could even be pointed out or analyzed.Ki-43 prototype first flew in January 1939, its design was specifically focused to be a successor to IJA's Ki-27 (that had performed well over China and matched the then-contemporary I-16). It was entirely in keeping with the Imperial Japanese Army's late 1930s combat experience and doctrine. Ki-43 Hayabusa, despite (like for example the Allied P-39, P-40, Hurricane of that exact same time interval) being outclassed post-1942 by newer more powerful fighter aircraft, was a stunning design for its time that was one of the cleanest and most balanced airframes of all World War II fighter aircraft. Hideo Itokawa's design is an aviation classic
>>65527243Tell me more about late war Japanese fighters, you seem to know more. The few that they made, what made them so good?
>>65527181Army, though the IJN expressed interest to (eventually which never happened) obtain the long range escort fighter while its few prototypes were being tested.Ki-83 and Ki-67 were the two most impressive combat aircraft designed & built by Mitsubishi for the IJA. Along with of course the recon Ki-46
Both the IJN and IJA bet on the Homare engine—and failed. That said, test flights conducted by the U.S. military using ultra-high-octane fuel reportedly yielded impressive performance figures.
>>65527266I acknowledge everything you just said, and I still feel that the armament should have been seen as far too light
>>65527222>Were teh small amounts of late war IJN/IJA fighters the monsters that games make them seem likeNo. They were way better than what the IJN/IJA was fielding early on and gave their American contemporaries a run for their money but the F4U and F6F were just plain monsters in air-to-air combat.>or why they actually as good as they say. Compared to the P38J/LLate-war Japanese materiel suffers from the same issue as late-war German materiel; most discussions on the topic eventually degenerate into "but what if the King Tiger DIDN'T break down all the time tho". It's hard to compare apples to apples when one apple is being produced in an unmolested factory in the midwest and the other apple is being produced in a factory that's starved for resources and repeatedly getting sodomized by bombs.
>>65527287N1K2-J was Kawanishi's evolved development of its N1K1 floatplane fighter, the intended full replacement of the interim Nakajima A6M2-N (floatplane Zero); by mid-war the primarily offensive role floatplane fighters were no longer needed so Kawanishi developed the Kyofu design into the land based undercarriage N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) that had the more powerful Homare engine. Around 1,000 N1K1-Js with the same general mid-wing configuration as the earlier Kyofu floatplane from which it'd been developed, were built. The later N1K2-J Shiden Kai was a revised 'proper' design of the land based fighter with a lower-mounted wing so its undercarriage could be shorter and more robust; its fuselage and empennage were redesigned, had a cleaner wing and cowling for the Homare 21 engine (design of which unfortunately set the aircraft's center of gravity too far back and a revised N1K3-J was to rectify this but only built in a few prototypes). N1K2's claim to fame was the auto-deploying flaps for combat that could detect g-force and airspeed in maneuvering where the pilot would require additional lift for turns, climb etc. But the Shiden Kai wasn't as fast as a Hellcat or the Army's Ki-84. An N1K4-J carrier-borne variant was proposed and one or two prototypes reportedly built, along with a proposed N1K5-J high altitude variant with Mitsubishi MK9A 2,200 hp three-speed supercharger powerplant (prototype destroyed prior to completion in B-29 raid).A separate interceptor fighter development from Kawanishi, to a different IJN specification from 1943 was the J3K1/J6K1 Jinpu (Squall) that was to have either MK9A or Homare 42 powerplant but its performance specification (even though it was calculated in the 400 mph speed class, on-paper unprototyped of course) was deemed not enough of an advance over the Shiden series and was dropped in 1944.
>>65527328>'should have been seen as' / it oughtaThat means you didn't read or comprehend the post^ replied to.These topics are about history. What fr occurred in physical and temporal reality and what decisions, actions actually taken therein. Not video games what-if or "we wanted it to be _________"Also fwiw reality this-actually-happened context during the 1939-40 timeframe of the initial Ki-43 versions accepted by IJA, its main field and pilot criticisms at that time of the brand new Haybusa were the retractable gear was an "unnecessary luxury" (compared to its much adored Ki-27 predecessor) and it was less maneuverable compared to the Ki-27. So there's that. Everything has to be taken in the context of what actually happened. RE: gun battery and IJA fighter forces encountering Allied air combat opposition, it wasn't until after 7 December 1941 (*almost the year 1942* beginning) that direct encounters with Allied fighter airframes, theeir relative toughness and durability under 7.7mm machine gun fire etc. was experienced by IJA aviators. So in terms of air combat field reports it wasn't going to be until early 1942, that Japanese pilots were going to be saying things like "these 7.7s are puny/ineffective" etc.12.7mm Ho-103 were refitted and upgraded across earlier -1a variants after 1942, along with the later Hayabusas' armor plate, 3-blade propeller etc.Timeframe-wise, these^ were actions that could only have been done, taken after *early 1942*.Compare and contrast this e.g. with mid-1940—two full years earlier—when the Battle of Britain air combat experiences of Luftwaffe shattered what Legion Condor had experienced a few years prior to that, what the German fighter and bomber aircraft needed to be armed-protected with, consequent modifications to fighter designs etc.Different timeframes. History.
>>65527312>Both the IJN and IJA bet on the Homare engineCrucial aspect. Hampered significantly these later-war fighter programs even though some of these planes were built, deployed in respectable numbers. Add in deteriorating post-1943 conditions—same as for Germany—of the war logistics overall, escalating heavy bomber attacks on the homeland that worsened production output, QC, raw materials supply and the explanation is clear.
>late war Japanese fightersthe Ki-100 was sort of a stop-gap radial—Mitsubishi HA-112—engined modification of the existing inline engine Ki-61 that had excellent medium altitude performance. It (like the combat flaps of N1K2-J Shiden Kai) gets a rep among video gamers for being rated in March-April 1945 IJA flying school evaluation tests (had good maneuverability, acceleration, climb rate) against the Ki-84; but in reality the Ki-100 came along as a last ditch replacement for inline engine Ki-61 variants not achieving the higher altitude B-29 bomber interception goal. First prototype of the Ki-100 with new radial engine didn't even fly until Feb 1945 and only a few hundred total were built (about 118 of the -I-Otsu cut down rear fuselage 'bubble' canopy variant); it didn't see first combat until 9 March 1945. There were projected future Ki-100 developed variants including one with a turbocharged engine for true high altitude performance but none of these came to fruition. The Ki-100's radial engine increased air resistance compared to its inline engine Ki-61 predecessor so it was slower than both that and the existing Nakajima Ki-84 Army Type 4 Hayate fighter. The Ki-84 was the best fighter mass produced by Japan in the latter part of the war, over 3,000 built. Its career was hampered by the previously mentioned Nakajima Homare powerplant, on which the Japanese mil aviation industry had placed reliance for key mid-war designs; the different Homare engine variants used in the Hayate had fuel pressure and other engineering problems that were never completely solved. The fighter was in full IJA development service by early 1944 and along with other aerodynamic/design modifications was received very well by pilots. High altitude-optimized variants with different Ha-45 powerplants were proposed and tested as prototypes. Post-war a captured Ki-84 was flight tested in the United States at war emergency power with high octane fuel at 427 mph airspeed.
>>65527367>had a cleaner wing and cowling for the Homare 21The cowling change from the Kyoufuu to the Shiden was much more significant than from the Shiden to Kai. The Kyoufuu has one of the cleanest looking but unconventional cowlings out of any radial engine fighter.>But the Shiden Kai wasn't as fast as a Hellcat or the Army's Ki-84It was faster than the Hellcat when the Homare was actually working.
The designer of the Homare defended it by citing the deteriorating quality of fuel and metal materials; however, critics argue that the design was simply overly ambitious for a young engineer, noting that no other country had attempted to achieve such a compact size in a 2,000-horsepower-class radial engine.
>>65527761>cowling changeThose were K1 / K2 Kasei-Homare different engines / airplanes entirely (yes obviously), and (You) out-of-context greentexting my sentence *--->that was specifically about the 1-J/2-J and its subsequent 3-J different-length nose attempt to solve the aircraft's CG problem isn't germane.>faster thanWrong. No Shiden ever exceeded 370 mph (and its rate of climb suffered at medium altitude) in level flight, the Hellcat was a 390-mph fighter.
>>65527266This anon gets it. The Hayabusa is probably the plane from that era that I'd most want to fly for the sake of flying, and least want to fly for combat
>>65527783>deteriorating quality of fuel and metal materials>design was simply overly ambitiousIt was a very compact dimension engine, for an air-cooled powerplant that requires very careful design and manufacturing tolerances. Later installations on planes such as the G8N had front-of-cowling counter-to-propeller-rotating fans (a la German BMW engines) to increase cooling air flow.
>>65527803an anon (on the WWII Pacific ? thread) recently posted a webm of a Hayabusa doing aerobaticsOf World War II warbirds it'd be a top desired Japan one to have restored flightworthy
At the start A6M was better that Ki-43-I. Then Ki-43-II closed the performance gap and came with armor. Superior Ki-44-II and Ki-61 started appearing around the same time. Even Ki-84 started appeared well before J2M and Shidens. If you look at the total numbers, Ki-43 made something like 30-40% of army fighters, while A6M made over 80% of navy fighters. So overall navy had it worse.In bombers there aren't enormous differences, except army began mounting armor and self-sealing tanks well before navy did. It was the exact same thing with fighters.Before the war one of reasons why IJN left out protection was because protection against 20mm would have been too fat and heavy for planes of that time and they expected the enemy to deploy such guns as well. I just don't understand what is with the armor of IJN fighters. Almost none of them had armor behind pilot, even the otherwise heavily protected heavy fighter prototypes.
>>65527857Good timeline and assessment. Yes in terms of fighters the IJN were stuck with A6Ms pretty much the whole war, carrier- or land-based. No successor to the carrier-based fighter until the never-deployed end of war A7M either>cockpit armor behind pilotdo you have particular comparisons with mid-war Army fighters to cite? (my guess is that Navy and Army had different doctrines as the war progressed in terms of protection for fighter pilots, also there weren't many other IJN single seat fighters apart from the A6M)
Ginga and Hiryu
>>65527802>Kawanishi developed the Kyofu design into the land based undercarriage N1K1-J Shiden (Violet Lightning) that had the more powerful Homare engineYou described it as mainly and undercarriage and engine change, so I was correcting that.>No Shiden ever exceeded 370 mphWrong. It reached 385 mph in Japanese testing (meaning at MIL power) and over 400 mph in US testing at WEP.
>>65528101>correcting(You)'re wrong and that's not what my sentence wrote; you have reading comprehension problems and are deliberately shitting up this thread with things that never existed.>It reachedDocumentation, may we see it?N1K2-J was a few thousand pounds heavier than the Ki-84, same basic engine power and had rate of climb issues. It was a lower performing aircraft than both F6F and Ki-84, period
>>65528117>(You)'re wrong and that's not what my sentence wroteI literally just quoted what (you) wrote.>Documentation World's Masterpiece Aircraft No. 196 for the Japanese test and pic related for the US. Maybe spend 2 seconds doing your own research instead of claiming others are shitting up the thread.
>>65528126>literallyBack to pleddit now, underage video gamer. Do not post on this site ever again>unreferenced hearsay japan publication / watermarked screenshot-crop unattributed slop chart(You) are shitting up this thread, the 2-J is a lower performing slower climbing aircraft than the F6F and Ki-84 and no amount of further invented slopspam changes that.
>>65528137>Gets proven wrong>Starts seething and making up insultsPlease leave and don't come back until you are actually able to make arguments with evidence instead of just getting mad.
>>65528176>pleddit copeDo not post here go back to your discord group. Stay out.That's not a 'please' request it is a direct order.>'insults'Sorry you were triggered by the factual video gamer truth but that simply is not our problem.>muh argument(none exists or ever did) Discord and pleddit is (You)r home so beyond blazingly evident with each new reference-free post. Now follow the provided ^instructions>'proven wrong'Burden is on (You) to *prove* novel assertions with documented references that you're incapable of doing (apart from 'i-it was real in my mind' s#@mcaps) since entering this topic.>'seething' 'mad'= (You), correct.
So yeah, Hayabusas (and pancakes) are pretty cool
It must have been difficult to refute the argument that "once an enemy maneuvers into a firing position behind you in a dogfight, it is all over, and installing heavy armor plating would only put you at a disadvantage."
>>65528399checked, on the recent Pacific thread it was mentioned that the IJN ? pilots in the Solomon Islands weren't issued parachutes as they weren't expected to survive if they went down
If their names starts with Ki, they were probably good.
>Raiden Why does she look so FAT
>>65527222They were roughly on par with mid war allied counter-parts.Problem was, it wasn’t mid-war anymore. So even if they had lasted until impactful numbers were produced, they would have gotten butchered by the super props and early jets that were nearing service.
>>65528723Combination of being short, the razorback, and the long, tight engine cowling. It's actually smaller than the Hellcat in every dimension.
>>65528399They could of refuted it by looking at the amount of times more rugged American fighters survived that very scenario. Or at the very least managed to keep their pilot alive long enough to survive bail out without becoming a fireball or a puddle of man ragu in an unprotected cockpit.
>>65528561Even the Ki-102?
>>65528723>>65528881>RaidenJ2M was designed by A6M engineer Jiro Horikoshi for the Navy as a land based fast climbing interceptor. The pinched shape is because of the intake fan at front of the cowling and long propeller shaft from its Mitsubishi MK4 Kasei engine. IJN's requirement was first conceived in October 1938 and spec'd out to Mitsubishi (who with Horikoshi at the time had been hard at work on the Zero) in Sept 1939; the Navy's interceptor was to have the same armament fit as the A6M2, 373 mph top speed, climb to 6000 m altitude in five-and-a-half minutes, 45 min endurance at full power, landing speed 81 mph, and takeoff distance in no-wind of 300 m. For the first time the Navy's spec requested armor plate behind the pilots seat. No maneuverability requirements in the specification and the choice of powerplant was left to designer Horikoshi.Tapered fuselage and engine cowling, shallow canopy, along with low aspect ratio laminar flow airfoil wing with combat flaps give the Raiden its flying barrel appearance. The prototype first flew in March 1942 and key modifications such as the Kasei 23a engine with fan cooling system (that slightly reduce nose cowling length), exhaust stacks and water-methanol injection plus flat bulletproof windcreen were incorporated but powerplant problems delayed series production of the J2M2 such that only 14 aircraft inclusive of three J2M1 prototypes had been delivered by March 1943 and just 140 planes produced in the subsequent year. The J2M3 with a stronger wing and four 20 mm cannon armament replaced the M2 model by 1944 but it was heavier and its slightly lower performance than the (new 2-J variant of) Kawanishi Shiden caused a June 1944 decision by the Navy to adopt that as its primary interceptor, with the J2M continuing in low-rate production until the Mitsubishi A7M Reppu could be built (that never happened).
>>65529961>Mitsubishi RaidenDevelopment continued through 1944 on high altitude performance variants that could reach altitudes of USAAF B-29 Superfortress bombers which already exceeded the practical combat ceiling of most Japanese fighter aircraft. J2M4, built in just two protoypes was powered by a turbosupercharged Mitsubishi MK4R-C Kasei 23c with a large air intake on the cowling port side allowed the rated 1,420 hp to be maintained up to 9,200 m (30,185 ft) altitude instead of 4,800 m (15,750 ft) of the standard Kasei 23a, and the J2M4 fuselage was fitted with twin oblique-mount 20 mm cannon. It could reach 362 mph at 30,185 ft but the complex turbosupercharger installation had to be abandoned and a different high altitude Raiden project was pursued by Mitsubishi engineers instead: the J2M5 Model 33 that had a wider cockpit with improved visibility for the pilot, and MK4U-A Kasei 26a with mechanically driven three-stage supercharger. J2M5 was the fastest Raiden variant with a top speed of 382 mph at 22,310 ft but although it began flight testing in May 1944 and over 50 aircraft eventually were built the deteriorating homeland Japan conditions made this the final Raiden production variant (even though several other further variants and developments to improve output and field availability of the interceptors were on drawing boards in last year of the war). Raidens were mainly used in homeland defense of Japan and briefly encountered by Allied fighter pilots in Philippines, Guam and Saipan deployments during 1944.
>>65527243>experienced Japanese pilots were in short supply.Not just pilots but their maintenance personnel too, especially for the IJN. The best were killed at midway, and many of the land based mechanics ended up stranded at rabaul or other starvation islands.
>IJA interceptor Ki-44 Shoki (Devil Queller)Nakajima began work on the Imperial Japanese Army's interceptor fighter specification in 1939, around same time as their Ki-43 prototype first flew and Mitsubishi was to begin work on the Navy's J2M interceptor design. The new Army interceptor needed a bigger more powerful engine than the Ki-43 and the Nakajima Ha-41 fourteen cylinder two-row radial (higher power version of Ha-5; a similar up-powered Ha-109 used in Nakajima's contemporary Ki-49 twin engine bomber) was selected. Designer Tei Koyama used a relatively small wing area, and tapered fuselage with vertical fin/rudder mounted rearward of the horizontal stabilizer (that was similar configuration to its later successor Ki-84 fighter). Revisions to the forward fuselage and large diameter engine cowling were required in development and the airplane had a relatively high wing loading and landing speed. Prototypes first flew in August 1940 but a year of flight testing development, pre-production aircraft with various engineering design changes and experimental unit field trials meant that IJAAF didn't officially accept the production Ki-44-I for operational service until September 1942. Even though it was the fastest Japanese fighter aircraft in service at that specific time, the first Ki-44 wasn't able to intercept the Army Type 100 Command Reconnaissance Plane (Mitsubishi Ki-46) so IJAAF decided to install the more powerful Ha-109 engine in the Ki44-II that was developed and produced as the -IIa during 1942 and 1943, most of which had 12.7mm wing guns and 7.7mm fuselage guns. Later versions and armament fits had all four guns as 12.7mm (-IIc) and even a caseless-ammunition 40mm Ho-301 cannon with 10 rpg in each wing. The Ho-301 was only effective at short range and some -IIcs were fitted with 37mm Ho-203 that had longer effective range.Picture is a captured Ki-44-IIb at Clark Field, Philippines in 1945 with one of its successor Ki-84 Hayates damaged at right
>>65530237>Nakajima Ki-44 ShokiWith the first flight of Nakajima's superior performing Ki-84 Army Type 4 fighter in 1943, continued work on the Ki-44 and its later developments (e.g. the 2,000 hp Ha-145 Homare-engined -III version) were dropped and production was terminated in late 1944. (The Navy's J2M Raiden land based interceptor aircraft project had begun and was introduced to service at around the same time but was also delayed during the war by engineering and production problems as posted ^^upthread). The Shoki was not well liked by its IJA pilots that preferred or were weaned on the nimble Ki-27 and -43 but some of them learned to use its relatively high speed (376 mph at 17,000 ft), rate of climb and diving abilities to advantage in combat, as by latter half of the Pacific war the overall aerial tactics had moved away from banking turn dogfights.
Despite development beginning early, the Raiden was plagued by persistent vibration issues. The root cause lay in propeller technology—an area where Japanese aviation engineering lagged behind.Japan had failed to advance from the licensed production or copying of Hamilton and VDM designs to the development of a robust foundation of independent research.
>>65530260>airframe vibration>propeller technologyYes that was a primary engineering problem in the J2M at certain engine and propeller speeds that Mitsubishi was unable to fully overcome. Engine mount shock dampers and propeller modifications mostly solved but did not eliminate it. The J2M2's close-fitting pinched engine cowling with cooling fan was ambitious and the Kasei 23a was the first Japanese-developed aero engine with water-methanol design.
>>65527889It's a a little unclear how far protection in late production Ki-43 and Ki-44 advanced as it wasn't part of subvariant designation. At any rate both had seat armor and self-sealing fuel tanks of some type.For Ki-61 it's better known. Ki-61-I Ko already started with protection, but tank protection was only 7.7mm proof and armor thin. Upgrades into protection came during production of next subvariant Otsu. All fuel tanks got relatively thick coating, lower rear armor came 12mm and the higher plate behind shoulders and head 16mm. Ki-84 came with similar protection, but 12mm back plate and small double 12mm + 8mm plates for head.Bullet resistant windscreens were introduced late in IJA as aforementioned fighters had round windscreen. Ki-84 appears to have been the only production fighter with 70mm windscreen. Ki-61-II and Ki-100 also came with flat windscreen are were tested with a thick one, but they weren't introduced for unknown reason. Same issue in Kawasakis heavy fighters.In IJN fighters protection came much later indeed. Somehow A6M was the only one with real seat armor, although it was only an 8mm plate for A6M5 Otsu and later. Ko or Otsu also received extinguishers for their wing fuel tanks. Those only had a single shot for each tank. 55mm windscreen came around the same time. Self-sealing fuel tanks were introduced first into A6M5 Hei or A6M6 for all tanks. I would imagine it wasn't all that thick coating.Meanwhile Mitsubishi's J2M and A7M had no seat armor, apart from a small 8mm plate for head in J2M. Both had 55mm or 70mm bullet resistant windscreen, which were mounted inside in Mitsubishi fashion. Both had thick coating for fuselage fuel tanks, while wing tanks weren't self-sealing at all, but all tanks had extinguisher system. Shidens had almost the same protection, except wing tanks were self-sealing as well and bullet resistant glass was normally mounted as windscreen.
>>65530388checked, thanks anon for this valuable researchRE: fuel tanks keep in mind also that in the early-mid 1940s when self sealing tanks were first developed yes it was a desired innovation and widely adopted but depending on the particular aircraft, each tank configured as self sealing also paid a penalty in fuel capacity for that airplane (due to thickness of the rubber layers on interior volume of each tank). So this may ? have affected individual engineering/IJN or Army decision to install on various Japanese aircraft.
How much of their plane development was indigenous and how much was stuff bought or borrowed from westerners?
>>65530534Pre-1940 there were American, French and German aircraft types that Japan had purchased or licensed for production. Japan naval aviation was established in 1912. Many different types and small manufacturers, flying schools, research centers, designers of aircraft existed prior to the 1930s in Japan. Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Nakajima were dominant manufacturers from the World War I and young Japanese engineers during the inter-war period studied at American engineering schools and manufacturers. Dornier, Junkers (including Swedish-built K 37 bombers) and BMW in Germany were consulted and their products purchased, as were Supermarine flying boats from the U.K. There were also aeroplane manufacturer subsidiaries of Japan shipbuilding companies. By the mid-1930s Japan aero industry had developed a range of mil aircraft types on their own. Japanese aero engines of circa 1940 were about half indigenously designed, e.g. the Kawasaki Ha-40 in the Ki-61 was a DB 601A derivation.
>>65530388US forces investigated Japanese self sealing fuel tanks and appraised them as sub-par compared to modern designs.They were suitable against .30 caliber machineguns, but .50 API, and especially 20mm cannons, utterly obliterated them.
Japan studied the B-17's self-sealing fuel tanks; however, regarding the seven-layer protective structure, the synthetic oil-resistant rubber layer that came into direct contact with the gasoline was still under domestic development, and the processing method for the foamed natural rubber layer (designed to seal punctures by reacting efficiently with leaking gasoline) remained unknown.Eventually, a version of the foamed rubber was successfully produced; it was applied to the tanks as a 30mm single-layer protective sheet and installed on various aircraft.
>>65529961Thanks, grok, now give me a cheesecake recipe.>The pinched shape is because of the intake fan at front of the cowling and long propeller shaftThe pinched shape is for low drag, and the long propeller shaft if to make that shape work. If you used common sense instead of AI that would be obvious. The Fw190 also used an intake fan, but had a more conventionally shaped cowling (except for the bumps on the side for the air ducts to go around the engine).
>>65530809>derpthreadShitter"""""because"""""" of is a colloquial response to the prior anon ^^^posted pic of the J2M 'why does she looks so FAT '<----- tl/dr addresses the physical appearance, not a discussion of aerodynamic/engineering design principles, Dumb FuckNow shut the fuck up incel underage video gamer illegally posting here, get the fuck off of our site and Stay Off.
>>65530828>Seething AI user also doesn't understand basic English
>>65530878Get out, ankle biterand stay out
>>65530650I recall that remark was about Ki-43-II or an early Ki-61. At that point their armor wasn't thick enough to protect from .50 cal AP either. Same applied even with early protective coating in most bombers. Ki-45 twin-engine fighter is said to have had pretty heavy protection early on, yet it was likely just as ineffective. Changes into Ki-45 fuel protection aren't known and what the following Ki-102 had. In Ki-61 the thickness of protective layer reached it's maximum at end of 1943, yet in a report from late 1944 Americans claim the protection had become more effective. It was also considered well protected by Japanese, even it's radiator was partially armored.Some later types achieved "equal" protection to Americans simply by having thicker tanks, though details are too lacking to tell how much thicker and which types does that comparison include. J2M fuselage fuel tank is simply described as THICK. :d One author claims Ki-84 simply went with thick enough tanks. Meanwhile J2M and A7M left out the wing tank coating as it would have reduced fuel capacity too much. Even for N1K2-J they still considered that option as it's manual has fuel amount for non-protected tanks as well. It leaves me baffled what those late Zeros were protected against as they came out in very late 1944. They might have had relatively thick tanks as they added two small tanks into wings and one more into fuselage to retain good capacity. Weight went up a lot.Specially among IJA bombers there were plenty of midlife protection upgrades, some of of which were installed on field. It has made it difficult to determine what each variant had. That's also mentioned in at least one American report.IJN had CO2 extinguishers in many aircraft types. IJA didn't use any in at least production types, but some bombers had nitrogen extinguishers instead. There was also at a least single case of carbon tetrachloride bags around Ki-67 fuel tanks. It might have been a short time test use.
>>65530897It's an interesting fact pattern and discussion, but ultimately is academic and historical hindsight. Japan and its aviation industry, the IJA/IJN procurement doctrine didn't have the approach to either aircraft structural robustness or combat pilot protection that the U.S. industrial and military machine that jumped into the war with both feet 1942 (the year that e.g. 'fireproof tanks' came into widespread United States use), had. Yes with combat experience the Japanese and their military leaders (and down the line from them, Japan's aircraft industry producing the machines) realized during 1942 and afterward that the Allies' .50 cal guns were wreaking overall havoc and causing loss of valuable pilots. There was only so much that the Japan industrial and mil leadership could do at that point with a Pacific war in full swing, to take key aircraft most of which had been designed to different primary spec than what the newer allied/U.S. ones had and then across-the-board come up with a survivability doctrine policy or requirement that they meet or exceed the aircrew armor protection, self sealing fuel tanks that the opposition planes had: Japan was having a hard enough time during 1943 and later simply supplying and manufacturing completed aircraft at all and that pressure got worse in 1944-45. (In terms of institutional IJA/IJN prioritzation of crew survivability, there's also the cultural aspect of Imperial Japan during that era which implies as a general attitude among mil leadership, it would not have been similar or analogous to British or American war production or mil commanders' "bring our boys back home safe" typical ethos.) Suffice to say that most evidence presently available shows that Japan's aircraft industry and mil establishment was struggling to keep up with what the Allied war production machine was throwing at them in the aerial war.
>>65527994GINGA SEX
>>65528723Big engine minimum weight minimal wetted area, gotta climb climb climb.Oh yeah and everything else that makes it viable as an interceptor like the armament, not having nasty landing characters like Willy Messerschmitt's anorexic pilot killer 1090000000000000s.
>>65529140Unironically if you look at oldschool UC Gundam series they basically are WW2 in space with mecha being fighters. The whole "yeah and if you even squint at their reactors a little funny with a beam weapon they fucking explode with no chance of survival" was basically a projection of engineering attitudes of minmaxing range at the cost of jack shit armor and non damage resistant fuel tanks. That and .50BMG AP variants was more-penetrating than equivalent peer autocannon rounds.Yes I will fucking drag Gundam into this because the Japanese pulled insane levels of Pacific Theater allegory over and even with the shitter Zeon apologist writing of modernity they kept all the relative fragility until you go late into UC where they have the head-cockpits in some models. If there was ever a more "grounded" depiction it would have higher survival rates for the pilots (at least up until they die from being stranded in space for a long duration after they bail their mecha). Combine that with a lack of rescue operations for their pilots and death of their pilots was not a possibility but a certainity.A true waste of manpower much like the Nazis in attriting off all their experienced and veteran pilots but shit was ideological at the flag officer level.
>>65531517Obligatory mention that late war USN fighters incorporated thickened and hardened aluminum on some portions to give addition protection.Utterly tangential and unrelated: War Thunder is a pox onto all serious discussions and vatnig fuckery completely discounts national design characteristics like why USAAF and USN fighters are big boned chunky boys because of the requirements of range and protection driving the engine which has the tyranny of the rocket equation like effects in compounding all of that together but leads to heavily built fighters that are capable of taking more damage than more lightweight "point interceptor" type builds which exploit how close their basing is to the frontlines (ex: 109, Soviet anything).
>>65531517>Unironically if you look at oldschool UC Gundam series they basically are WW2 in space with mecha being fightersA bunch of characters are apparently named after Japanese planes too.
>>65531542Yeah the Feddies were the allegorical early war US, inexperienced and not full of BUSHIDO WARRIOR SPIRIT of the death cult unlike their Zeon counterparts. Cue the reversal of favor when late war MSes ("late war American fighters with big honking engines, shitloads of lethal autocannons*") combined with late war aces ("who survived because their mecha were more durable") reverses the trend. That's why its funny for me to look at the newer era of Gundam fans who don't understand it was a cheap knockoff of the Pacific for the story to sell toys. It was easy to pull all the flaws up and paint that on the designated baddies to them go "and that's why they lost" for the plot.*Unironically think about the allegory: Beam weapon grazes reactor (and disrupts the reaction) and leading to the mobile suit exploding? Shit was just a 20mm HEI round from a Hispano hitting the fuel tanks of a late war A6M. Pilots getting immolated by a beam rifle passing near the torso cockpit? Same story of less robust construction from lighter airframes, less protective elements for the pilot means pilot gets killed no chance to bail (ignoring the lack of parachute usage here as well).There was cultural awareness in the past about these flaws from the 'tists who got into their entertainment industry at the time. Too bad their successors don't "get it" that the UC setting was an attempt to tell the major blows Pacific theater as a story to sell toys to kids and instead do Zeon apologism because they think Zeon is a honorable depiction of Japan rather than a criticism of Imperial Japanese policy.>Oh yeah we made zillions of one off mobile suits and shit and yeah they're cool and high performing but we never could make enough of them so the average child soldier is using a Zaku>Almost as if this was trying to reflect on real life late war conditionsReeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
what could have been
>>65527196>land based bombersArmy got the Mitsubishi Ki-67 heavy bomber and the Navy received its Yokosuka P1Y medium bomber, each of which were best in their classthe Navy's Nakajima G8N was the most impressive four-engine military aircraft built by Japan though late in the war and in small development numbersthe C6N was a highly impressive carrier-based reconnaissance aircraft, and the Army had its twin-engine Ki-46
>>65532061>what wouldn't ever have been not even close
Navy had the Aichi B7A Ryusei attack bomber
>>65532061>Finally, something that can directly reach the United States!>*Kamikazes a ship in San Diego Bay*
>>65532219They were about 60% done with this one till a B-29 raid accidentally the whole facility it was at.
>>65532267yes that one is more realistic and conceivable
>>65532267>accidentally
>>65527994>Ginga and Hiryu1:48 scale injection molded model kits of each are required(a little known brand named Sanger briefly issued 1:48 vacuform kits of each these two aircraft)
how cum when people talk about tanks they use the colloquial names people gave them like sherman and tiger, but with planes it's all ki-this and n1 that? it makes it hard to follow if you aren't a super nerd.
Datte boku wa hoshi dakaraaaaa
>>65532391cute comet
>>65532379with the Japan World War II planes it's a bit more nuanced than compared to German or Allied ones, each aircraft had a code name assigned by the Allies (for the A6M Zero that was ''Zeke") and then they had the official Japanese name (which itself has an English translation). Plus, the Army and Navy planes of Japan had a separate 'Type' number designation according to the last two digits of the Japanese year (2599 = 1939 A.D. ---> Type 99), which became the last three in 2600 = 1940 A.D. ---> Type 100, and after 2601 = 1941 A.D. just the last digit was used, that the aircraft gained service acceptance. e.g. the Army Type 4 Fighter (Nakajima Ki-84) was accepted in 1944Imperial Japanese Navy had a similar but slightly different 'Type' system with the 2600 = 1940 A.D. year only using the last '0' digit (in contrast to the Army's 100)e.g. the Navy Type 0 Fighter (Mitsubishi A6M codenamed "Zeke" by the Allies) was accepted in 1940.There were also different Model Numbers for each subvariant of the type of plane, e.g. the A6M2 carrier fighter was Model 21, A6M3 was Model 22 (full wing) and Model 32 (clipped wing, Allied codename "Hamp" although <--they fucked up when later realized it was just a slightly different "Zeke"), A6M5 was Model 52 and so on.So for the Japan ones it's simpler, clearer to just refer to the manufacturer's numerical designation.
>>65532428>then they had the official Japanese name (which itself has an English translation).Consistently referring to say the Ryusei as the Shooting Star would probably annoy and confuse a lot of people, though I've never seen anyone do this. Imagine trying to discuss a naval battle while consistently using the literal translation of ship names.
>>65532428why not just use the names like jack or raiden though? tanks had a lot of model designations too but you don't hear people saying "the m4a3e8 was much more reliable than the pzv ausf.d" unless you're really in the weeds with specifics. in my boat video game the planes are just listed like this.
>>65532446>literaland sometimes the English translation of those names has a couple transliterated closely-similar variants:Nakajima C6N Saiun>Painted Cloud>Iridescent Cloud
>>65532466checked, You can for the more recognized, famous or commonly known and -discussed ones.
>>65532466Allied names are hillbilly names and I find the designation easier to remember than most of the Japanese names. Also how many aircraft are named after some kind of wind or lightning?
>>65530777Trips noticed.Yeah self sealing tanks are a big deal, sure it's something meme'd too much but they did matter and for double so bombers really.
>>65532466>in my boat video game the planes are just listed like this.Botecolle mainly goes for whatever formal name the IJN or IJA used for the plane though this isn't always the case. Pic related for example: The equipment is named "Ki-102 B Kai + No.1 Model 1B Guided Missile" (キ102乙改+イ号一型乙 誘導弾) instead of something like Type 4 Attack Plane (四式襲撃機).
>>65532522Though the only other exception for Japanese planes is the Ki-96. Otherwise it's other a Type X official name or a name like Toukai.
Also fairies are cute.
>>65532502>Also how many aircraft are named after some kind of wind or lightning?shiden is purple lightningshinden is magnificent lightningreppu is strong windjinpu is squallhayate is gale
Hayabusa is Peregrine falcon
>>65532502>designation easier to remember than most of the Japanese names(additionally, for example to put another finer point on it) the well known Kawanishi N1K was famed in the first place for its *later* land-based undercarriage fighter derivative, which itself came in two distinct variants.As explained >>65527367 the original N1K1 Kyofu (Strong Wind or Mighty Wind, Allied codename "Rex") floatplane fighter was not produced or used in large numbers, and the better-known N1K1-J (the dash -J siginifying it had a different duty from the original seaplane) land based retractable undercarriage interceptor fighter named the Shiden (Violet Lightning), which ended up being the most-produced variant of the series.But a just-as-famous successor, the N1K2-J land based interceptor had a major redesign with a lower wing, was not produced in as large numbers, but was really a different plane as it had a lower mounted wing, new empennage—and ought properly, due to the substantial changes in design, new armament have been given a new Type and manufacturer's designation number—but they just added the series number '1' to '2' and the Kaizo (Kai) modification nomenclature, so the 2-J was named Shiden Kai (... Violet Lightning Modified...)Allies' reporting name "George" applied to both N1K1-J and N1K2-JSo if someone in a wargame says 'bring in more Shidens', what version of the land based interceptor fighter do they mean?
>Peregrine Falcon >Gale >Flying Swallow >True Crane >Wild Goose >Sabre >Sharp Sword >Cherry Blossom >Fire Dragon >Storm Dragon >Flying Dragon >Dragon Slayer >Demon Tag yourself
>>65532428Also worth noting that the IJN's short naming system was very similar to (based on?) the US Navy's. A6M2:A - Role (Carrier-based fighter)6- Place adopted of that type (6th)M- Manufacturer (Mitsubishi)2 - Model series (2nd)vs F6F-3F - Role (Fighter)6 - Place designed of that type by that manufacturer (6th)F - Manufacturer (Grumman)5 - Model series (5th)
>>65532548I wasn't just restricting it Japanese. For lightning goes there was the P-38 and I think there was an Italian lightning as well. As far as winds go I was thinking of some the Hawker aircraft names, if storms fit under the category.
>>65531070What if Ginga with jets?
>>65532600Is it Manufacturer for Japanese or just the designer? Most of the A6M were made in the Nakajima Ota plant.
>>65532758There's not typically a letter-distinction for the actual manufacturer, unless the airplane itself is fundamentally different in design or construction.An example of this would be the wooden-airframe version of the Army Type 4 Fighter (Nakajima's Ki-84 Hayate) as built by Tachikawa: the Ki-106another related different example would be the Nakajima A6M2-N or floatplane Zero (aka Mitsubishi's fighter with floats as built at the Nakajima factory) <--which was specifically assigned to design and engineering by the IJN, to Nakajima as a derivative of the carrier fighter i.e. it wasn't Mitsubishi's project to begin with.As regards to same-design planes, as with the Allies it could be other manufacturers building the same version of the plane (e.g. U.S. re-designated the Goodyear F4U Corsairs as FG-1Ds) but new number/lettering designation mostly wasn't done in the Japan system, they just built the same-designation planes at other company's factory(ies).
>>65531534>Obligatory mention that late war USN fighters incorporated thickened and hardened aluminum on some portions to give addition protection.Yep, bunch of USN fighters used them basically as 'deflection' plates. Will they take a direct hit? Absolutely not, but at the right angle, it can turn a deadly hit, into a miss.
What are the advantages of using thick aluminum plates instead of thin steel plates when there is no need to achieve structural rigidity, such as in the hull of an armored vehicle?
>>65532758Yeah, I should have said designer. It's especially apparent with planes like the Suisei (D4Y) and Ginga (P1Y) where the designer was the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal.
>>65533142>where the designer wasright, and somewhat parallel applies for example to the Nakajima A6M2-N where they retained the 'A6M2' (Mitsubishi, original) design designation but added the -N (instead of changing the core alphanumeric design designation) for the differently-purposed floatplane with airframe *modifications* designed and engineered (and whole finished plane manufactured) by Nakajima per IJN's order, just simply called it a Nakajima aircraft. >Yokosuka Naval ArsenalRE: manufacturing, D4Y Suisei prototypes were built by Yokosuka, almost all production aircraft from Aichi's factory in Nagoya with a few hundred others from 11th Naval Air Arsenal (Dai-Juichi Kaigun Kokusho) at Hiro.P1Y Ginga prototypes and subsequent mass production were assigned by IJN to Nakajima's Koizumi plant that was terminating its Type 96 Attack Bomber Model 23 production in early 1943; a small number of P1Y2s were separately manufactured by Kawanishi in Konan.
>>65533168>Nakajima A6M2-N where they retained the 'A6M2'For what it's worth, the USN did this as well with the Edo F4F-S Wildcatfish.
>>65533183Not familiar with it, but it looks like Edo just modified an existing aircraft.
>>65533334Yes, just like how Nakajima modified the existing A6M. The USN and IJN even used the same -N/S to indicate redesign to a seaplane.
>>65533341Were the A6M seaplane conversions made on aircraft manufactured by Mitsubishi?
>>65533360New production because Stock zeroes were leaky t. Jap wikipedia The source is listed as 『不滅の零戦 生きつづける名戦闘機』光人社、2007年、111-112頁。ISBN 978-4-7698-1373-6。("The Immortal Zero Fighter: A Legendary Fighter That Lives On")
Ki-27 or A5M tho?
>>65534405toss up
>>65533838Kind of bizarre in a way, was bringing that up because the F4F-3s was a production wildcat later modified. I thought it'd be modified after production off the Nakajima assembly line, it doesn't make sense to throw in a new short production lot on the line and it'd be less of a changeover at Mitsubishi which had moving crews. I guess they had to produce it separately.
>>65535136>thought it'd be modified after production off the Nakajima assembly lineRead --- >>65532790Imperial Japanese Navy had a 15-shi specification in autumn 1940 for a fighter seaplane to support amphibious operations and protect forward bases across Pacific islands, and commanded Nakajima to design, engineer and manufacture a floatplane redesign of the A6M. It had a new empennage (and yes like any flying boat-seaplane required additional corrosion resistant airframe) with taller vertical tail + new added ventral fin and was designated Navy Type 2 Floatplane Fighter Model 11. Mitsubishi never had anything to do with it>F4F-3Swas a one-off. Yes 1 single production F4F modified by Edo Corporation (that also provided 100 sets of floats per USN contract) prototype was flight tested but the project was canceled due to strategic changes in the mid-1943 Pacific war such as availability of new allied airfields constructed on the island hopping campaign, the burgeoning USN carrier fleet to fly fighters from, and the generally poor flight performance of Edo's converted floatplane Wildcat. It was a short-lived contingency project of the USN's own late 1942-early 1943 conception that quickly became redundant.
(also a side note on the late 1930s - early 1940s USN *non-fighter* observation floatplanes) The IJN's 1940 specification^^^ for a floatplane fighter required substantial design and engineering changes to the A6M including removal of the carrier fighter's landing gear and fairing over of wing wheel wells, addition of wing floats and a robust center fuselage pylon for the main float that also contained a fuel tank (to partly compensate for loss of a centerline drop tank). Contrast that with the Edo F4F-3 relatively straightforward modification that (in addition to the F4F-3S's removed-faired over undercarriage and added tail vertical stabilizers) were essentially 'bolt-on' twin floats, similar in arrangement for USN's existing OS2U and SOC single-float scout observation and rescue planes that could be catapult launched from battleships and cruisers. The SOC, OS2U (and its successor SC Seahawk that was to be the final USN catapult-launch floatplane) in addition to their single-float configuration, were each simultaneously procured by the U.S. Navy in landplane wheeled landing gear versions and could be field converted or configured either way if needed.Edo Corporation also had a post-World War II scout and rescue floatplane design of their own for the U.S. Navy, a small single-float aircraft powered by a Ranger 550 hp engine. This was a similar size and powerplant to the mid-war Curtiss SO3C Seamew (intended replacement for the Curtiss SOC) which was built in some numbers but ended up being a failure; the USN specification for the plane required that (like its predecessor) it be designed for both land operation with wheeled landing gear and in its floatplane configuration. The problematic Seamew was retired by 1944 and (along with OS2U Kingfisher) replaced by the SC-1 Seahawk, all production examples of which all were delivered to the Navy with wheeled undercarriage to field units where floats could be added as required.
>>65535495>Mitsubishi never had anything to do with itRead what you quoted >off the Nakajima assembly lineMeaning Nakajima was making A6M and I thought it'd make more sense to modify an aircraft than build a new one which was similar to their initial plan in >>65533838
>>65537041>'what you quoted'I never "quoted" anything.(You) are the one 'quoting' whatever the fuck that screencap^^^ isNothing about the A6M2-N aircraft came from or was manufactured by Mitsubishi.(Nakajima itself was already building the A6M carrier fighter as co-production.)The A6M2-N floatplane fighter was not a Mitsubishi project and they had nothing to do with it. (except obviously, the Mitsubishi A6M design being the basis of the new floatplane)______________________>"their initial plan">"initially the plan was" [FROM INCOMPLETE SCREENCAP]>'the plan'What 'plan' ? Whose? <----Imperial Japanese Navy had a 15-shi specification in autumn 1940 for a fighter seaplane to support amphibious operations and protect forward bases across Pacific islands, and commanded Nakajima to engineer and manufacture a floatplane redesign of the A6MIn 1940, *IJN ordered Nakajima to engineer and manufacture a floatplane redesign of the Zero* (carrier fighter Nakajima was already building). Whatever it is (You)'re talking about needs more evidence (the '[2]' reference on "Japanese wikipedia" or wherever that cropped screencap is)The engineers at Nakajima that took IJN's 15-shi specification order and were assigned to the floatplane fighter design project were named Niitake and Tajima.(If you're somehow claiming that "y-yeah in 1940 Nakajima took the Navy's order and thought : well maybe we'll just convert these already-completed carrier fighters with landing gear and no-floats into seaplanes on the way out the factory door," or "y-yeah the ones returned for maintenance will be converted" that's a shitty retarded wasteful engineering logistics and managment idea, and are going to have to provide evidence for it.)Also the "Type 1 Seaplane Fighter" part of that ^^^^wiki screencap makes no sense at all - ??? (Kawanishi's N1K Kyofu was intended to be IJN's primary seaplane fighter but priorities shifted by the time it was ready for and entered service)
>>65527266good post, I love the ki-43
>>65527148First stage of the war IJN, by 44 till wars end the IJA. A6M2 was the best carrier fighter through all of 1942 and while they began suffering during the Solomons campaign already this was more due to allied tactical improvements and the lack of replacement aircrew in general, which already set in at the end of 1942 (especially for carrier aviation). Skipping midwar, as soon as Ki-84 entered service the IJA was ahead in terms of fighter technology until the end of the war.This is extremely general and boiled down of course, but while Japan had a definitive advantage in 42 and lost it with P-38 and F6F entering the theater, the battlefield became way more level in 44 again with Ki-84 and N1K starting to see combat. The US supply of competently trained pilots, unhindered supply and superior tactical adaptions were far more decisive than technical discrepancies alone, with exception of a few extreme scenarios most felt during 43-mid 44.Ki-43 remains the overall best performing fighter and the only Japanese one that downed more than they lost.Both services had some of the finest attack, dive and long-range medium bombers of the entire war, but their potential was almost entirely lost
>>65527994I love these two so insanely it's a shame how little firsthand accounts there are of their service (one for ki-67 attacking shipping off Iwo Jima at night) or just any records at all. So much lost potential, absolute tragedy, like with the 762 kokutai or T-Butai, all these excellent new airframes with new radar squandered against THE opportunity to deal a blow to the US carriers of Taiwan in October 44. The lack of new and good Japanese aircrew is the single most decisive factor in the pacific airwar, far more than any technological difference
>>65528473Can't tell if they really weren't issued at all, but they were not carried that's true, same for the army. And not just in the Solomons but New Guinea as well, since it didn't matter if you came down still alive as long as it wasn't on your airfield. Bail over the ocean and die from sun and dehydration or sharks, bail over the innavigable jungle and starve or die from illness.
>>65537104Citing text even a forum post and posting a link to it would be considered quoting.
>>65539263>>65539279>>65539297Good posts, yes in terms of the air war after 1942 Japan was at an overall logistical and eventually manpower disdvantage; the technical discrepancies are subordinate to this and changes in tactics that favored Allied machines and their force structure across the Pacific. Also by 1943 the U.S. Navy's submarine warfare was taking a major toll on Japan's ability to conduct logistics and supply from home islands. Japan Navy and Army aviators were fighting with what they had but the overall tide of the war had turned a year after Pearl Harbor. Both sides had excellent and comparable equipment after 1942 but the Japanese air and (especially) naval forces were at a disadvantage by that time. Japan was simply not able to introduce its new replacement fleet carriers or their full air groups and the U.S. by 1944 had amassed an armada of scope never seen in human history. Add in the mid-1944 and later B-29 raids on the home islands wreaking havoc on their ability to manufacture warplanes: it was degrees of pressure unable to be withstood.
>写真は同じ元山空(二代目)鹿児島分遣隊に所属する>雷電二一型(上)と、紫電一一乙型(下)です。>機体の塗粧は二つとも濃緑色ですが、決定的な違いが。>雷電二一型は風防前に黒色の防眩塗粧を施していますが、>(白黒写真ではほぼ分からない程度のコントラスト差です)>紫電一一乙型にはそれがなく、胴体側面と同じ色です。>なぜ、このような違いが生まれたのでしょか?Thank you for your input on this matter MC Axis magazine.
>>65541523That's a fair question, I know paint schemes changed over time, but the Raiden is the only navy plane I know with that anti-reflective stripe. Post more weird camo patterns.
>>65541874>Weird camo patterns on planes >Look inside >It's just whatever Tanaka saw at museum recently
>>65541929
>>65527243>they're famous and exploits widely discussedI honestly feel retarded but what exploits did the later Tigers have?All the famous stories I've heard about Tiger Is and are from '43 maybe early '44 if you stretch it. By Normandy or Begration you barely hear anything interesting except for Villers-Bocage. Kingtigers and Jadgtigers only seem to exist to break down or drive into embarassing ambushes.
>>65540872Yes, overall this was not winnable for Japan with sheer military might alone. Submarines from mid-43 and inability to replace pilots were the two most decisive reasons for the near complete lack of true visctories past 1942. Even when resources and safety were available to train, this new personel was always quickly expended for almost no gain.This happened in early 43 when newly replenished carrier viation (post santa cruz) was used from Rabaul and hot ground up in offensive attempts in the solomons after Guadalcanal, it recurred in the battle of the Marianas june 1944 when the entire carrier aviation got whiped out after a year of training, and once again in October 44 when the specialised Taifu-Butai (762 Kokutai of combined IJN and IJA aviation, using the best aurcraft and new radar to attack in bad weather which grounded US fighters) was nearly bled dry for 3 torpedo hits. One of these was confimed by the sole survivor of 16 Ki-67 from 98 Sentai, which took out USS Canberra for the rest of the war, its crew consisted of veteran Army and Navy pilots. I need to say I feel the Japanese were also plagued by a lack of good luck and a lot of bad luck.>>65541874The G4M had zhese for the entire war, not on all aircraft but it appeared in all variants. The few bare metal zeroes had them too.>>65542903Some, the Canadians and English suffered heavy losses in Normandy, but you hear less about them since people only look at US vs Germany engagements. Tiger 1 remained succesfull in the east too. Tiger ii killed US general Rose in March 1945.
>>65543377The T (which probably stood for torpedo, not typhoon) attack force was a Navy group, formed before then, which only sometimes worked with the army.
>>65527287There are some good books on them. Eagles of Mitsubishi is great for the zero and its story as well as a little more after the A6. Winged Samurai about Saburo Sakai is good too. Avoid the one book just called Samurai about Sakai as a lot of it is exaggerated by the American who helped write it. Sakai in his memoirs talks about how good the N1K1 was but he also talks about how much better allied aircraft were, in particular the Hellcat. He also liked the A7M2 but it never saw action.
>>65528137>>65528191Shut the fuck up, bitch. You got BTFO, take the L like a man.
Ryusei is BIG
>>65551125yes it waspretty sleek Homare engine design
What about bombers like Ki-21 vs G3M?
>>65553733Forgot pic
G3M was a Navy bomber designed to a mid-1930s specification, it had longer range and was designed to deliver torpedoes as its primary warload.K-21 was designed to a later-1930s Army specification for a 'heavy bomber' (more like a medium) and, being a relatively new type, was encountered frequently by Allied aircraft in the first two years of the Pacific war.Both of these Mitsubishi designs would be replaced by more advanced types although the Ki-21 was still preferred by some Army crews to its immediate successor, the Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu.
