• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Japanese carrier torpedo bombers

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
Hi! Mitsubishi's carrier torpedo bombers.
Source:ENCYCLOPEDIA OF JAPANESE AIRCRAFT 1900-1945 (MITSUBISHI)
 

Attachments

theponja

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
428
Reaction score
10
What I can say ? Thanks a lot. Muchas Gracias. Very interesting and difficult to find information.
:D :D :D
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
395
Reaction score
92
These are awesome .. well, practically i know little to nothing about Japanese aircraft projects..

Many thanks for the shares .
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,242
Reaction score
350
Thanks to you all. Although I'm rather conversant with Japanese World War II types, I'm fascinated by all the pre-war biplanes, which I knew virtually nothing about until I joined this forum. Some great design here!
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
The Navy Type 10 Carrier Torpedo Bomber ;
Mitsubishi(三菱) aircraft ordered Sopwith's engineer Mr. Herbert Smith to design this single seat carrier torpedo bomber. No,1 aircraft was completed in August 1922, succeeded maiden flight with torpedo by pilot Jordan at Nagoya factory Mitsubishi aircraft. This aircraft was tested in Kasumigaura(霞ヶ浦) base by the IJN, employed as the first Japanese carrier torpedo bomber. BTW the height of aircraft was to high to operate at Hosho(鳳翔) carrier(the world's first completed carrier which designed as a pure carrier), stopped manufacture after 20 aircrafts completed. This was the only tri plane in Japan.

The Navy Type 13 Carrier Attack Bomber ;
Mitsubishi(三菱) aircraft also ordered Sopwith's engineer Mr. Herbert Smith to design this 2 to 3 seats carrier attack bomber. No,1 aircraft was completed in 1923. This aircraft was used as the main carrier attack bomber from 1920s to the early period of "the Japanese - Sino) War". In the 22th of January 1932, there was a air combat in Soshu(蘇州) sky China between single Boeing P-12 and three type 13 carrier attack bombers and two 3-shiki 2 go carrier fighters. P-12 was shot down.
 

Attachments

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
i was wondering if there were designs to compete with the Aichi B7A Grace by other Japanese companys to try get the order to build a a new generation torpedo bomber for the Imperial army
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
Hi!
The Type 92 carrier attack bomber was planned as a replacement for the sluggish Type 89 carrier attack bomber.
The tentative name of the prototype Type 92 carrier attack bomber was a experimental modified Type 13 carrier attack bomber, but completed as a different airplane in the end of 1932 at the Yokohama Navy Arsenal .
This plane was adopted by the Japanese Imperial Navy in August 1933 and was named the Type 92 carrier attack bomber.
The production version of this aircraft was manufactured at Aichi(75), Watanabe Iron Works(23), and Hiro Navy Arsenal(about 30).
Source : ENCYCLOPEDIA OF JAPANESE AIRCRAFT VOL.2 AICHI KUGISHO CONTENTS and VOL.1 MITSUBISHI CONTENTS
 

Attachments

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
260
This aircraft was tested in Kasumigaura(霞ヶ浦) base by the IJN, employed as the first Japanese carrier torpedo bomber.
Indeed, Herbert Smith's 1MT1 was the first Japanese built carrier torpedo dropper, but it wasn't the first operated by the Japanese. That distinction goes to the Blackburn Swift and Sopwith Cuckoo. Two Swifts and six Cuckoos were delivered as part of the British Naval Mission to Japan of 1921 and although the aircraft were largely used for training at Kasumigaura, they did operate from the Hosho. Here is a photocopy of a cover with a Swift dropping a torpedo and a Cuckoo in the background. Perhaps you might be able to kindly translate the text, Blackkite?
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
第8章 航空術力の錬成
Mmmm......little difficult Japanese.:D
Perhaps "Chapter 8 Training of Aviation Techniques"
 

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
What about projected torpedo bombers in WW2?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
Hi!
At the end of the Pacific War, the task force of the Japanese Navy's aircraft carrier was destroyed, making it impossible to operate the carrier attack aircraft.
I think that there were no plans to develop new carrier attack aircraft after the Ryusei carrier attack aircraft of Aichi.
Even if there was a plan to develop a new carrier attack aircraft, I think it had been canceled.
 
Last edited:

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
That's very sad Blackkite San! I'm wondering what the Japanese aircraft industry was comming up with! I know one paper project from Aichi ,that's the B8A Mokusei .This aircraft was a smaller version of the Aichi B7A Grace.that's all I know of a projected torpedo bomber
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918
Oh let me check this.
I'm studying about Rikufu now.;)
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918

Attachments

Last edited:

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
That's the plane! I wonder if it was operational what damage could this bomber inflicted the Americans!
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
114
Reaction score
28
Not much more than any other Japanese bomber facing the same overwhelming American air superiority, if even that.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
1,918

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
Not much more than any other Japanese bomber facing the same overwhelming American air superiority, if even that.
Don't be so sure if the Japanese had the chance to develop some more promising projects like Reppu ,Jinpu or having more fighters like Kawasaki ki 100 or Kawanishi N1K George the outcome was certainly different. Mokusei had the good protection of this fighters and could inflict much more damage. Second this aircraft was much faster it has self sealing tanks,it wasn't a zero that caught fire while it was hit by a single bullet
 

windswords

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
329
Reaction score
55
By this point of the war the overwhelming numbers of American and British Commonwealth aircraft negated any advancements that the Japanese could have made. Even if they could have produced the A7M, J7W, J6K, Ki-83, Ki-87 and Ki-94 (and certainly not all of them would be made - there would have been winners and losers in the military's selection process), they could not have made enough of them to make a difference. And the Americans were not slowing down. Just on the horizon were the F7F, the F8F and the P-80 and P-84.
 

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
By this point of the war the overwhelming numbers of American and British Commonwealth aircraft negated any advancements that the Japanese could have made. Even if they could have produced the A7M, J7W, J6K, Ki-83, Ki-87 and Ki-94 (and certainly not all of them would be made - there would have been winners and losers in the military's selection process), they could not have made enough of them to make a difference. And the Americans were not slowing down. Just on the horizon were the F7F, the F8F and the P-80 and P-84.
And so you have a weapon race on your hand because Japan was also developing advanced aircraft likeMitsubishi ki-83 nakajima ki-201 and the kikka. Ki-83 was the counterpart to Grumman F7F Kikka was the first Japanese jet fighter that has flown. The Nakajima ki 201 was at a advanced stage of development .Also were further developments of Mitsubishi A7M Reppu And N1K Shiden at the drawing board.,the Japanese also were developing 2 engined jet bombers. The Americans had if the war was going on to 1946 or 1947 an almost on possible task to defeat Japanespecially they where also developing a nuclear weapon
 

windswords

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
329
Reaction score
55
And so you have a weapon race on your hand because Japan was also developing advanced aircraft likeMitsubishi ki-83 nakajima ki-201 and the kikka. Ki-83 was the counterpart to Grumman F7F Kikka was the first Japanese jet fighter that has flown.
Did you not read my post? I mentioned all those projects and more. It didn't matter. Japan was never going to make enough of them even if they all reached production status (and they wouldn't have, they would have picked 2 or 3 to concentrate on). The Ki-201 was not in an advanced stage of development. The airframe was never mocked up let alone built and the engines were in early development and disentegrating on the test stands. The Japanese could not even develp an effective turbo supercharger. When the Americans captured a G8N Rita and tested it they had to turn off the superchargers because they did not function properly. The Japanese nuclear program was unfocussed, divided between competing army and navy programs until they were combined late in the war and did not even have a reactor or a plan to enrich uranium which would take a very big industrial effort and a long time - time they didn't have. Even if one of these advanced designs could have been built in any number the quality of the work would have suffered under the continued bombardment of the B-29s, just as it did for the current aircraft at the end of the war. The shortage of strategic materials would have forced them to build even more compnents out of wood which they had already started. Even if they could have overcome all of those things (and they could not have) they would still not have enough well trained pilots to take advantage of them. Any talented rookie pilots they had were being sent to die as Kamikazes. Time had run out for the Japanese.
 

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
And so you have a weapon race on your hand because Japan was also developing advanced aircraft likeMitsubishi ki-83 nakajima ki-201 and the kikka. Ki-83 was the counterpart to Grumman F7F Kikka was the first Japanese jet fighter that has flown.
Did you not read my post? I mentioned all those projects and more. It didn't matter. Japan was never going to make enough of them even if they all reached production status (and they wouldn't have, they would have picked 2 or 3 to concentrate on). The Ki-201 was not in an advanced stage of development. The airframe was never mocked up let alone built and the engines were in early development and disentegrating on the test stands. The Japanese could not even develp an effective turbo supercharger. When the Americans captured a G8N Rita and tested it they had to turn off the superchargers because they did not function properly. The Japanese nuclear program was unfocussed, divided between competing army and navy programs until they were combined late in the war and did not even have a reactor or a plan to enrich uranium which would take a very big industrial effort and a long time - time they didn't have. Even if one of these advanced designs could have been built in any number the quality of the work would have suffered under the continued bombardment of the B-29s, just as it did for the current aircraft at the end of the war. The shortage of strategic materials would have forced them to build even more compnents out of wood which they had already started. Even if they could have overcome all of those things (and they could not have) they would still not have enough well trained pilots to take advantage of them. Any talented rookie pilots they had were being sent to die as Kamikazes. Time had run out for the Japanese.
I certainly read your post! The things you've mentioned is true but as I said before they have this projects in development. America was only lucky because they have a bigger industrial complex than Japan had in the war.Japan wasn't beaten because they were inferior the opposite is true! The superchargers of Nakajima G8N failed because they haven't shortage of good quality materials not the design! The Nakajima ki 201 karyu was indeed in the very beginning stages of development I didn't say that is was flying! But Kikka has reached the prototype stadium and make its first flight several days before the end of the war.And the Japanese nuclear program concerns, yes they were developed by two teams of the army and navy .But they were further than Germany.
I replied on your post was because people in the USand in most western country's thought/thinks Japanese were copied inferior western designs! The Japanese had a very advanced aircraft industry. Many American pilots can confirm this ,they must probably learned the hard way! Kawasaki ki-100 (later also with turbochargers )and Kawanishi N1K were better than F6F Hellcat for example the George was more nimble than Hellcat. And better armament.Nakajima ki -84 was faster in climbing and more manoevrable than P-51 Mustang! This proved again the Japanese professional skills that their engineers have at that time!
My final word is to explain the reason that Japanese lost the war!The first thing I had already mentioned The bigger industrial capacity of the US.Second the Japanese made some tactical errors. These two reasons costed the Japanese the war.If they made some better tactical decisions and in combination with fighters /bombers I mentioned earlier I still saying the war wasn't developed the wrong way for Japan!
 

windswords

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
329
Reaction score
55
No one has suggested the Japanese lacked the technical skills when it came to developing aircraft. They were behind the allies in several key technologies however and were in a game of perpetual catch up, especially when it came to engine development, including jet engines. They also lacked the ability to produce high octane fuel that would allow them to boost their engines to make more horsepower. Japan's inability to manufacturer a reliable turbo supercharger was indicative of the rest of their aviation industry. They did not have the resources and in some cases the technical know how.
It can be disputed that the Japanese were further than Germany in nuclear science. The German scientists had a much better understanding of the physics involved but military wold not give them what they needed to exploit that knowledge. The Germans even had a prototype reactor under construction the first step in sequence of producing a viable weapon. The Japanese even if one believes they were "ahead" of the Germans were not anywhere close to a reactor. They were a long way from enriching uranium and coming up with a method of initiating a criticality event to produce a nuclear detonation. One more year of war was not going to make a difference.

"I replied on your post was because people in the US and in most western country's thought/thinks Japanese were copied inferior western designs!"
This is the wrong audience for that. We are not most people here, but well versed in matters of aviation technology. This is not YouTube or some other general forum. You have made an incorrect assumption about those of us who participate here.

The Ki-100 and it's predecessor the Ki-61 ALWAYS had a supercharger. It was a mechanical supercharger, just like the one in the F6F. It was the turbo supercharger that eluded them and because they could not develop higher octane fuels limited the power output of their engines and the ability to achieve good performance at high altitudes.

When one goes through the records of engagements of both sides, you find that against the Ki-100, N1K and the Ki-84 the F6F more than held it's own. The best you can say from the historical record is that the later Japanese fighters were competitive with the Americans and British but not clearly superior (and at high altitudes they were inferior). All through the war Japanese planes climbed faster and turned tighter than American and most allied planes. They still got shot down in large numbers, due to tactics, superior numbers and in the end, better trained pilots.

You should not state that if the Japanese had been able to develop any of their advanced airframes that the "outcome" would be "certainly different" - just because you feel that some people "thinks Japanese were copied inferior western designs". That doesn't serve the cause of history or the audience of this forum. Neither the Japanese or the Germans were going to turn around their fortunes with any late war aircraft. Only if the Me-262 had been introduced when it was first available could have made a difference. But Hitler insisted on using the plane as a bomber and the delay caused allowed the British and Americans to achieve air superiotity in Western Europe which allowed the destruction of industry, railways, and oil refineries by bombing. With the Soviets chewing up the best parts of the German army in the east (and later the Japanese Kwantung Army in China), there was no hope for either.
 

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
No one has suggested the Japanese lacked the technical skills when it came to developing aircraft. They were behind the allies in several key technologies however and were in a game of perpetual catch up, especially when it came to engine development, including jet engines. They also lacked the ability to produce high octane fuel that would allow them to boost their engines to make more horsepower. Japan's inability to manufacturer a reliable turbo supercharger was indicative of the rest of their aviation industry. They did not have the resources and in some cases the technical know how.
It can be disputed that the Japanese were further than Germany in nuclear science. The German scientists had a much better understanding of the physics involved but military wold not give them what they needed to exploit that knowledge. The Germans even had a prototype reactor under construction the first step in sequence of producing a viable weapon. The Japanese even if one believes they were "ahead" of the Germans were not anywhere close to a reactor. They were a long way from enriching uranium and coming up with a method of initiating a criticality event to produce a nuclear detonation. One more year of war was not going to make a difference.

"I replied on your post was because people in the US and in most western country's thought/thinks Japanese were copied inferior western designs!"
This is the wrong audience for that. We are not most people here, but well versed in matters of aviation technology. This is not YouTube or some other general forum. You have made an incorrect assumption about those of us who participate here.

The Ki-100 and it's predecessor the Ki-61 ALWAYS had a supercharger. It was a mechanical supercharger, just like the one in the F6F. It was the turbo supercharger that eluded them and because they could not develop higher octane fuels limited the power output of their engines and the ability to achieve good performance at high altitudes.

When one goes through the records of engagements of both sides, you find that against the Ki-100, N1K and the Ki-84 the F6F more than held it's own. The best you can say from the historical record is that the later Japanese fighters were competitive with the Americans and British but not clearly superior (and at high altitudes they were inferior). All through the war Japanese planes climbed faster and turned tighter than American and most allied planes. They still got shot down in large numbers, due to tactics, superior numbers and in the end, better trained pilots.

You should not state that if the Japanese had been able to develop any of their advanced airframes that the "outcome" would be "certainly different" - just because you feel that some people "thinks Japanese were copied inferior western designs". That doesn't serve the cause of history or the audience of this forum. Neither the Japanese or the Germans were going to turn around their fortunes with any late war aircraft. Only if the Me-262 had been introduced when it was first available could have made a difference. But Hitler insisted on using the plane as a bomber and the delay caused allowed the British and Americans to achieve air superiotity in Western Europe which allowed the destruction of industry, railways, and oil refineries by bombing. With the Soviets chewing up the best parts of the German army in the east (and later the Japanese Kwantung Army in China), there was no hope for either.
OK the Germans were building a reactor that's true,and that the Grumman sand Convairs held their own that's als true .but the reason is that US pilots had at the later stage of the war a better training. And that the Japanese fighter lacking to operate at a higher altitude is also true but that doesn't mean that they were inferior. The only US fighters that was operating on a equal altitude of the B-29 was the P-51 Mustang not the other US fighters.
You're right about the late situation of the war that Japan could win the war.I mentioned to say if the situation for example Midway, if they had won or plays even than the US could made their strategy of island hopping.
The Americans had never conquer Japan even with the Russians who came at a very late stage as a combatant against Japan without the use of the two atomic bombs!
You also said that the new er Japanese fighters aren't quite superior to allied types. I did not completely agree with you,because the Ki_84 for example (I didn't speak about the later superior training of US pilots )
I speak about carateristics and weapons,for example all Japanese fighters has cannons and like de zero and Ki 100 and 61 had a mix of cannons and machine guns.The Americans of the other hand has only machine guns -39 was the only exception!
The Ki -84 has superior climbing power and armament even better than the Exelent P-51!
N1K George had also a better overall characteristics compared with the F6F Hellcat. One George shoots down 4Hellcats in a dogfight above Japan and made the other Hellcats flee!
These fightersites having problems with landing gear and engines but that was the result of inferior materials .
I'm glad we agree that the Japanese weren't inferior, I also agree with you that Japanese were lagging behind in some Erias of weaponry.Like Radar(although they were fast catching up with the allied radars) And the Americans were ways ahead what the development of the atomic bomb concerns America puts more money and had a lot of German and Tchechoslovakian scientists concentrated in one program. These advancenties dint have the Japanese We can discuss for ever who's beter Japan or the US,that is fruitless.
They did both have Exelent engineers and has both weaknesses.
The Americans has won the warmy because to better tactics and use of weaponry, and as I mentioned earlier they have a far superior quantity supply because theyou had a far bigger industrial complex.
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
114
Reaction score
28
I do not understand what in the world you are trying to say or what argument you are trying to make.
 

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
I do not understand what in the world you are trying to say or what argument you are trying to make.
I shall tell you clearly what I want to say First Japanese aircraft aren't inferior
Second Japanese engineers were working on planes superior to that of US
Thirth America won the war by luck and better tactics! And bigger and quantity better industry
If you read my story and now my reply to your reply than I hope now that I made myself clear to you!
My proposition is to end this fruitless discussion. Because we have both good points. So nobody wins.
Second we are off topic
 

windswords

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
329
Reaction score
55
"...but that doesn't mean that they were inferior".
Saying that someone lacks the resources or even the technical know-how does not equate to some kind of inferiority (in other words less God-given ability). The Japanese certainly had ability. Your premise that I or the original gentlemen you replied to felt that somehow the Japanese were inferior in abilities was wrong. That they lacked certain resources and technical data is without question. They have certainly proven themselves to be highly proficient in technology since the end of the war. To say that they could have turned or even extended the war beyond a few months is also wrong when you look at the strategic disadvantage they found themselves in from June 1944 onward after the loss at the Battle of the Philppine Sea (the "Great Marrianas Turkey Shoot").

"The only US fighters that was operating on a equal altitude of the B-29 was the P-51 Mustang not the other US fighters".
The P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-38 Lightning would like a word with you. Both had very good turbo superchargers (like the B-29s), both were on hand in large numbers all the way to the end of the war and both performed well to 40,000 feet or more. The were both built for high altitude combat. It should be noted that the Mustang only had a mechanical 3 stage supercharger.

"The Americans had never conquer Japan ... without the use of the two atomic bombs!"
If the Japanese had not surrendered they would have been invaded by the US and British Commonwealth. That has been known since the end of the war and is covered in several good books on the subject. This was not an intellectual exercise - plans were laid, troops, ships, and aircraft were being assembled. Units from Europe were being transferred to the Pacific. It would have been a horrific battle but the end result would still have been the defeat of Japan.

"You also said that the new er Japanese fighters aren't quite superior to allied types".
I said they were at best competitive. Not superior and not inferior. "At best" because it depended on how well built and maintained the plane was, what kind of gasoline stock they had available (big difference between 87 and 92 octane on allowable boost), and of course if the pilot had any experience.

"I speak about carateristics and weapons, for example all Japanese fighters has cannons ... The Americans of the other hand has only machine guns..."
You should do more reading on the M2 Browning .50 caliber. It was an outstanding weapon that not only could shoot down Japanese planes but also German planes which overall were more armored than the Japanese. But even the Japanese used their copy of the Browning (12.7mm) to great effect. The Ki-44 started out with only 12.7 mm machine guns. The Ki-61 started with two 7.7 mm and two 12.7 mm guns. Not one Japanese pilot ever complained that either airplane was undergunned.

The American heavy machine gun had several advantages over automatic cannon:
Greater ballistic velocity
Higher kinetic energy
Longer range
More rounds of ammo carried (actually much more)

Now as the war progressed, advances were made in cannons to negate some of those advantages: But there were also advancements in American heavy machine guns as well:
The development of armor piercing incendiaries able to penetrate armor plate and ignite fires.
The development of other specialized types of ammunition.
And finally the M3 model of the Browning:
It had a 50% (!!!) increase in rounds per minute over the previous M2 (1200 vs 800 previously). Think about that... You could outfit a P-47 Thunderbolt with just 6 of the new guns (which is all it needed of the old guns really) and it would have MORE firepower than before with the older 8 guns (6400 rpm old vs 7200 rpm new). These weapons were being readied for mass production and at least some of the fighter and attack aircraft would have been equipped with them if the invasion of Japan had occurred.
"During World War II, a faster-firing Browning was developed for aircraft use. The AN/M3 increased the rate of fire to around 1,200 rounds per minute, while firing the same round with minimal change in weight or size. The AN/M3 was used in Korea on the P-51D-30, F-82 Twin Mustang (the XP-82 mounted a total of 14 AN/M3 machine guns), F-86 Sabre, F-84 Thunderjet and F-80 Shooting Star, and in Vietnam in the XM14/SUU-12/A gun pod".
The History of the Aerial Gatling Gun by Major Dennis C. Carel, US Air Command and Staff College 1987
Even after WWII the M2/M3 was still an effective air to air weapon and was not phased out till the later 1950's. The weapon is still in use today around the world as a general purpose machine gun virtually unchanged because it is (still) so effective.

"N1K George had also a better overall characteristics compared with the F6F Hellcat. One George shoots down 4Hellcats in a dogfight above Japan and made the other Hellcats flee!"
I would like to see a citation on that. There were many stories given in the Japanese press in the last year of the war of incredible victories by brave pilots often greatly outnumbered. Almost all of them were fictitious stories designed to boost moral. One often cited is how ace Kinsuke Muto single handidly fought off 12 Corsairs in his Zero fighter while shooting down 4 after which they gave up the fight to return to their carrier. It didn't happen. Another was of a big furball between the 343rd Ku and a group of Hellcats that were badly beaten by the Japanese and fled after sustaining serious losses. Postwar research as revealed that both sides lost two airplanes each that day. A draw.
 
Last edited:

T-50

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
355
Reaction score
18
OK I agree that machine guns have the advantage of carrying more rounds. Also is true that development of better munition was underway (both sides did) The Browning was certainly a good gun The Dutch used them too.The succes of later types of machine gun was indeed based on better penetrating munition(there for higher kinetic power)Till that I'm with you .
But why turned for example the Spitfire and Ki-44 Tojo from machine guns to cannons?
I know the Japanese stuck by a mixed gun cannon configuration.,
The Spitfire for example was switched their Browning guns for Hispano Suissa 20/30 mm cannons, the Japanese did the same witch the Tojo Ki-61 had German cannons .
Like machine gun ammo the ammunition of cannons were also inproved at the same way as the Brownings. Higher kenetic energy, faster firing rate. Like the Ho-5 and German RheinMetall cannons.
So I disagree with you that guns were better.
But I agree both have advantages and disadvantages. Guns can carry more ammunition but cannons have better destructive power.
I think that US and Japanese /German and als Russian and British at the other hand has a different approach because of their different experience at combat.
The Germans and Japanese discovered that guns had little effect on the very strong fuselages of the raiding B-21st and B17s.They made the correct decision to use more destructive types of weapons, the US didn't have the need to improve their weapons .
Because for example A Messerschmitt Me-109 was not so strong like a P-47 or B-29 ,so they never have the need to install weapons with a heavy punch such as the Ho-5 or Russian SKVASH autocannon.
At the Korean war I agree the Browning M3 did it's work very well but they need six guns on only a fighter as the F-86 Sabre to give the Sabre it's deadly punch! .a lot of space seems to me! The MIG -15 otherwise has only
two 23 cm Nudelman-Rikhter and one 37 Nudelman 37 mm cannons. My opinion It seems it was over powered .But a deadly punch the MIG-15 possessed They needed it because they encountered again the B-29.
My conclusion is to end this essay both weapon systems had their good and bad points .that one country choose the machine gun and the other choosing the auto cannon is based on experience.
Second I stay on my opinion that the US had a better training system so they had more experienced pilots. Ande nobody has won this discussion you have good point but I also has strong points. So we hopefully learn from each other (youre right about P-38 and P-47 they've like P-51 a high service ceeling)
Thirth you said the Americans had conquered Japan,true they made preparations for ithe, they have even a code name fore it namely operation Olympic .and you said they invade the mainland of Japan with or without the use of the atomic bomb. Weven both know the reason that Trueman desited to use the bomb they prohibited that the result was a huge awefull amount of casultys under the troops.The commanders decitet for that reason the bomb.and they were afraid of the public opinion at home.
It's a hypothese if or if not thate the Americans will or will not invade the Japanese homelands.I'll dare to say theye didn't, because they were not Japanese they prepair to give everything even their lives but Americans were not so fanatic. But as I say it's a hypothese Olympic was not necessary maybe they had invaded the homelands with out using the bomb we will never know.
Let we now going back to the topic torpedo
bombers of Japan and have a nice weekend
Windswords!
 
Last edited:
Top