Pearl Harbor happened 21 yrs before I was born. But I got to see it...well, sort of. In 1969 I lived in on Oahu on the west side of the inlet to Pearl Harbor. One day I walked out my front door and saw a large formation of Japanese Zeros flying low over the jungle right near my house LOL. I ran back inside and said "mom, didn't we already beat them?!" LOL. My mom chuckled and said "oh, they're filming a movie about the bombing of Pearl Harbor"; i.e. "Tora, Tora, Tora"
Lucky Boy! You witnessed the making of one of the greatest WWII aviation movies ever, the other being "The Battle of Britain", made around the same time IIRC! I was born exactly 22 years after the Kido Butai left Hittokappu Bay, so i'm a young chap too! Regards!
My Mom's brother was one of the engineers putting together the structures that were destroyed in that film, mostly the ship elements. It is very cool that you have that memory "... hey, didn't we already beat them?" 'Gotta grin.
@@gyrene_asea4133 My Dad took us out to Ford Island where a lot of the film was shot. It was a Sunday so the entire production had the day off. We still have 7m camera film of me and my siblings lifting what looks like large chunks of concrete that were actually styrofoam cut and painted to look like broken concrete. An actual P40 that had been strafed during the attack in 1941 was dragged out of a hangar where it had been mothballed so it could be used as a prop. The landing gear was bent and it had bullet holes on one of the wings. Apparently, when the attack happened the pilot was strafed while he was taxiing down the runway, swerved a bit and hit some debris and bent the landing gear. Me and my older brother got into a heated argument because he wouldn't get out of the cockpit LOL. We were actually able to get up close to the radio control mockups of the Zeros. They were 2/3rd the size of the real ones and had dummies in the cockpits. It was a once in a lifetime experience for sure...
@@GTX1123 that’s actually hilarious, i’ve lived on oahu island aswell and pearl harbor inspired my interest in war history. i can imagine the quick burst of terror you got.
I've a friend who is a Japanese speaking historian and its always interesting to hear about just how distorted a lot of war histories are in English due to so many historians relying solely on secondary sources or western sources for details about the Japanese military. The view is very different from those who have gone into the primary sources - so thanks very much for this, it's enlightening and good to see so many myths about Japanese fighting busted.
You should try out the book “Shattered Sword” by John Parshall. It’s about what really happened during the battle of Midway from the Japanese side of things. It’s a really well done book
Yeah! I mean, comfort girls were really girls bestowing comfort to us hard working jap soldiers!! How on earth could the Anglo-Saxons have mistranslated this into forced gangbsnging and prostitution ?!?!
Can confirm about shattered sword. Can also recommend "the unauthorized history of the pacific podcast" John is a pretty regular guest there and its a great blow by blow of the pacific war.
"How smart people all over the world confronted the same technical problems." That's 'the rub,'; there is always a better mousetrap, but the iterations of inovation are amazing. What a wonderful show. Thank you.
I've read in Prados's "Combined Fleet Decoded" that the Ki-61 was codenamed "Tony" because they believed that it was a licence built copy of an Italian Macchi C.202 fighter, which totally makes sense when you look at them because both use the DB 601.
I've read accounts dating from the war where it was often reported as a 109 by Allied air crew as well. At the time it was a commonly held belief the Japanese were using German fighters and they were expected to be encountered. Ironically Japan did in fact acquire a few Bf-109s before PH for testing
There was a combat veteran of the 475th fighter group out of New Guinea that thought the Ki61 was an Me109 until the day he passed away. There was a veteran of the 14th AAF in China that became General and still referred to Ki43 Oscar's as "zeros" at the turn of the century. Takeo Doi the main designer of the Ki 61 did a sort of apprenticeship at Blohm and Voss working with Richard Vogt who also did work for Kawasaki. Doi was influenced by European designs particularly the Hienkel He100 and variants.
@@icewaterslim7260 Ki-43s being reported as a A6M Zeros I can understand since they do have somewhat similar profiles and pilots often had the only briefest of opportunities to ID an AC. In a way every Japanese fighter became a Zero in much the same way every German tank became a Tiger
@@icewaterslim7260 In Edward Peary Stafford's The Big E there a few passages where engagements with Messerschmitts are mentioned which we know today were more than likely with Ki-61s
Yeah understood and it would probably be typical but you'd think someone who had become a General would've learned enough about the theater in which he fought would eventually learn exactly who he fought and their equipment. Inland China would've fought Imperial Army. Tex Hill had it right and he was an original AVG pilot.
Years ago I read "Blossoms in the Wind", a book about survivors of the various Kamikaze programs. One of the interviewees was a Ki-44 shotai leader who saw late war replacement pilots stall and spin in because they tried to fly the Ki-44 like the Ki-43s they'd been trained on. Poor and inconsistent fuel received several mentions, one biplane pilot survived because his engine failed and his survival instincts kicked in when he landed in the water. It's not an aviation book but it's the only English language book I know that explores the kamikaze from the Japanese survivor's perspective. Oh, and another point about Japanese radios: Every nation had radio problems at the start of the war due to precipitation static and the weather in the South Pacific was a lot more turbulent that either side anticipated. The US assembled a research team that largely solved the problem but the Japanese did not have the necessary resources. Poorly shielded ignition systems contributed to their problems but the underlying issue was atmospheric physics.
The Japanese and Americans had a good excuse, in the long list of British military incompetence in 1941 was the constant failure of radio in the air and on the ground. Imagine fighting on your "home ground" and being constantly surprised by conditions.
@@danielstickney2400 great recommendation, another factor was also something involving differences in earth's magnetic field on the equator compared to the Japanese mainland.
@@Swagdonaldz That is the most comprehensive historical assessment of the Zeke/Zero that you're going to be finding out there. Plus more of the aerial tactics of the Sino-Japanese war, some of which were repeated here.
Griaß di! Just wanted to share as a Bundeswehr Combat Veteran of the Gebirgsjägerbrigade 23 and Heeresbergführer, now working as Historian mainly for the IFZ in Munich nowadays that i'm really proud to see a German doing such great Videos regarding History on TH-cam. Usually it's just Americans or the British and your Content from all i watched (and shared with Colleagues) has been really good! Now i personally didn't focus too much on the Luftwaffe in the past 10 Years, all of my Family were either in the W-SS, Gebirgsjäger or Fallschirmjäger (me myself also having served as Gebirgsjäger of the 23rd Gebirgsjägerbrigade with 2 Tours in Afghanistan, wounded by an IED in the 2nd Tour and 1 in Kosovo via KFOR) and currently helping out training Ukrainians via EUMAM-UA regarding "Harsh Terrain Warfare". So it's nice to have some properly researched Content on Topics i'm not too educated on regarding WW2 that isn't either pure Clickbait or takes a lot of Liberties to leave out certain Facts or over-exaggerate other Facts just in Order to get more Views and Engagement in the Comments (sadly a very common Thing among certain popular "History" TH-cam Channels) So keep up the good Work! Prost & Cheers from the Snow-Covered Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
I would be also curious about the poor combat performance of the Spitfire Mk.Vb Trop and Vc Trop over Darwin, Australia, against the A6M2/A6M3 variants.
The pilots used the wrong tactics. They came from Europe and were used to out turn the Germans. This did not work with the Japanese. After switching to American (or German) tactics, the Spitfire performed well but was handicapped by short range. Source: memoirs of George Kenney
There was the fighting on May 2nd 1943, the IJNAS had G4M1s (4th Kokutai I think) attacking Darwin with 27 A6M from Tainan Kokutai escorting them, they were engaged by 33 RAAF Spitfires. The Japanese suffered seven Betties and seven Zeroes damaged, but no aircraft lost, in return the Australians suffered 14 Spitfires destroyed in the air. Not sure but I believe the variants used were Mk.V Spitfires and A6M3. G4M1 had no official subvariants, only minor changes made during production, like different covers for the rear gunner, different exhaust layout or externally added rubber protection for wingtanks
A good book to read to learn about IJN naval doctrine & what not is John Parshall’s “Shattered Sword” which is about the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective using known doctrine of the time, surviving reports of the battle & more.
Zeros appeared only late in the war against China. And just like Spitfires, "boom and zoom" was the preferred method of attack. However right after Pearl Harbor Chennault forwarded a memo about the Zero to US intelligence -based on his experience with USAF P-40s - sent in with the AVG - that P-40s should not try to turn with a Zero and, even more important, not to climb into an attack. As far as loss ratios go I think Lundstrom shows pretty conclusively that the Japanese Navy had the edge over Wildcats - but they were steadily losing the edge over Guadalcanal and by the end of 1942 the edge had gone to the US Marine Wildcats. My research indicates that something very similar took place in New Guinea. The one thing the P-40 and Wildcat had in common is that they could out-dive a Zero and matched them in speed at most altitudes And they were a lot more rugged - they paid for that with poor climb rates, but they could take a punch. Neither the Zero or the Oscar could. Of course one thing that was changing in 1942 is that the Japanese superiority .in pilot skills was steadily declining as US pilots gained more experience and Japanese pilots started losing more vets. BTW: one Japanese memoir that is badly overlooked but is, I believe, more reliable that "Samurai" is "Zero, The Inside Story of Japan's Air War in the Pacific" by Masatake Okumiya (with help of Martin Caidan). I would be very surprised if this book or "Samurai" had a Japanese edition. In the postwar era there was little eagerness in Japan to remember the "good old days" - in addition, the Japanese put much less store on the actions of individual fighting men and emphasized group efforts. "Requiem for Battleship Yamato" by Yosida Mitsuru was a dramatic exception. In the 1960s things started to loosen up a little - Admiral Hara's book about IJN destroyer actions was a good example., ditto with Jiro Horikoshi's memoir "Eagles of Mitsubishi." But I think the Japanese started to write about operational matters until this century. That's what makes the Strategic Bombing Survey - Pacific Edition - so valuable, all of that data came from Japanese sources. I'd also look at the Japanese end of the MacArthur Papers which includes a two volume history of Japanese operations written by former Japanese officers.
The Ki-61 "Tony" viewed from the side, resembles the He-100 more than any other aircraft. The cowling, cockpit and even vertical stabilizer and rudder resemble the Heinkel very obviously; only the addition of the radiator is different (the Heinkel has an entirely different and unusual cooling system). In planform, the Tony resembles the MC 202 design. I'm always surprised no one notices the Ki-61 / He-100 resemblance. It's unmistakable.
Wow, you guys need to read Dunn's South Pacific Air War. He has a huge amount of Japanese operation data which refutes alot of the radiational narrative. You would enjoy it, completely backs this up
Thanks! What does the IJA and IJN doctrine say about CAP? How many, where, what altitude, reinforcements on stand-by etc? And how does that compare to USAAF/USN and RAF/RN?
Thank you so much, very appreciated! We will look and see what we find on this, hopefully we can discuss this in a future episode. I am not sure if we can find the raw doctrine files though, something to look into!
Can't tell for IJAAF, but at the beginning of Pacific War IJNAF relied on one flight from each carrier patrolling designated square around carrier task force. Flights were echeloned in height (for example: 2 flights on 2000 meters and 2 flights on 4000 meters). Ready flights stood on carrier decks to reinforce CAP when necessary. Formally each flight was subordinated to Direct defense commander (who was CV Gunnery officer) of his own carrier, but all CAP flights shared common frequency so each could call for help. Before Midway to compensate for some "slips" of observers unusual fighter direction technique was introduced - warships shot smoke rounds in the direction of incoming air attack which could easily be seen by both fighters in the air and other warships.
My great uncle was a zero pilot in the IJN. It seemed to me like the war was an off limit topic for him. All I ever heard about it was a story about him getting shot up badly and making it back to the carrier.
Really interesting video, especially how the army attitides were different from the navy. Id be really interested to see a deep dive on the Ki-84, which in my opinion was their best fighter and one of the best overall in the world, even better than the Navy's N1K2 in my opinion. Fast, good climb rate, good weaponry and still a great turn rate, interesting that you mention them actively trying to counter western designs even when still in the ki 43 mindset, iirc the ki 84 startes development pretty early into the 43s combat life
I was in college in the late 60s. Sometimes on Saturday nights, we would go down to the TV room and watch war movies, including air battles with the Japanese. What’s funny is that we had a Japanese exchange student with us who was laughing and rooting for TheJapanese fighters. It was all in good fun and, as I think back about it, it’s amazing that in as few as 20 years after the war, we could be on such good terms with the Japanese.
Did the rivalry between the Japanese Navy and army hurt Japan? For example the Nakajima Ki-43 and Mitsubishi A6M appear to have the same performance so why waste resources building both planes?
The rivalry wasn't just limited to the aircraft themselves: the imperial army and navy even used different but functionally equivalent autocannons and machine guns firing similar but incompatible cartridges. Navy guns wouldn't fit army planes, army guns couldn't fire navy cartridges, duplication and confusion all around.
It absolutely did. They competed for resources immensely. The Ki-43 and A6M are quite different though so that isn't a good example, the Zero is carrier fighter that is bigger, marginally tougher, faster, and has greater range and better firepower whereas the Ki-43 is more nimble and smaller as well as being cheaper and quicker to produce. Both were designed and produced prior to Japan being on the back foot too. A better example of competing resources is the Army developing the Ki-84 and the Navy developing the N1K2-J at the same time in the late war period, both serving as land based interceptors in the same period against the same enemies. One could have been eliminated to save resources and more could have been produced of one design. Equipment-wise both branches had different weapons to accomplish the same goals, producing muiltple very different 20mm cannons for example instead of just focusing on one design and using it for both branches. Other examples of the Navy and Army rivalry causing issues is the inability for the two branches to support each other, the Navy often refusing to assist Army islands under threat and vice versa. Both branches were very reluctant to engage in combat to protect the other if there was any chance of losing their own units in the process. The Navy actually didn't warn the Army about the midway defeat until months after it happened. The Army ended up producing it's own ships too, both transport vessels and combat vessels, as well as two escort carriers because they outright refused to collaborate with the Navy whenever possible. A huge waste of resources to make a small seperate Army controlled naval force instead of just working together. Hell, particularly in the pre-war period, staged assassinations of the other branches officers was not unheard of
@@danielstickney2400 That problem was not confined to the air forces; as I understand it, the Japanese Army had seven different and incompatible rifle cartridges, creating a logistical nightmare that, on several occasions, resulted in units having a copious supply of ammunition they couldn't use, while being horribly short on the ammunition for their weaponry.
Could you maybe also do a part of this series with Drachinifel? His specialization is in warships which would allow him to have some interesting inputs & insights when discussing IJN carrier doctrine. Also, can you please do a series like this for the US Army Air Corps & USN in WW2 Pacific as well?
This is awesome! Its nice to see something besides a "bf-109 tactic against 'X' allied plane" themed video 😅. I know thats not all you do, but I adore Japanese planes for some reason. So to see my favorite aviation youtuber cover my favorite planes in depth makes my day. Thanks keep up the great work!
Thanks for this Christopher. Considering the forensic, obsessive accounts and investigations of air combat in Europe, I am most surprised how facile is the coverage of air combat and Japanese capabilities in Malaya, Burma, and certain other campaigns. The RAF had been at war for two years and won the Battle if Britain. Faced with a similar mission in December 1941, they were swept from the skies by a foe with (compared to the Luftwaffe) grossly inferior equipment.
Thanks for the analysis. From what I've read and recall, the Japanese Navy evolved a three-aircraft formation attack by the time of Midway (June 1942). Despite being more spread out than the British Vic formation, it still tied two wingmen to a lead element. This seems like a good tactic against bombers (torpedo, glide and dive), but not as effective against two and four-plane fighter formations that could maneuver.
Had they been able to work together, the Army and Navy aircraft could have been the same. The Zero and Oscar could have been like the Seafire/Spitfire, or the postwar McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, where there are carrier and land-based variants.
Over Guadalcanal 3 aces basically did a airshow in tight 3 plane formation. The marines were so empressed that antiaircraft rounds stopped and these aces did an airshow over Henderson. Back at their base the CO of the aces was pissed and yelled at these great combat pilots
Hi Chris, in a previous video on the Pacific air war (and I'm pretty sure it was with Justin too) you mentioned the kill/loss ration of the Ki-43 v P-47 in New Guinea being 1:2. Which is remarkable. Would you know what reference was used for that figure? No worries at all if its too hard to track down. And I'm only asking because i made a comment about it on one of Gregs Automobile and Airplanes videos, where he went into depth about the p-47 in the New Guinea theatre. And Greg replied requesting further detail...but again, not hugely important at all. :)
@ Amazing! And thanks Justin - what a champion for following up. I've just ordered the book. Such an interesting piece of history - and one not well known. I have just finished the excellent novel "Nanette" - the love story between a P-39 Pilot and his plane - set in New Guinea. A beautiful read. Thanks again Chris!
@@Charger44 Hey! I figured I'd pop in as well since I was able to check the book quickly on my lunch break. It looks like you just got the ratio flipped around. Happens to all of us! It was, with a number of important caveats you can see outlined in the book, 2:1 in favour of the P-47. That's far lower than what the Americans thought based on their claims, which is par for the course. P-47 pilots claimed ~121 victories against Ki-43s from August 1943 to April 1944. For their part, the Ki-43 pilots claimed ~60 victories against P-47s. The actual number, again with caveats, was 19 Ki-43s lost against 9 or 10 P-47s.
@ Thanks a bunch mate! Appreciate that. Even with the correction and all the caveats, it is a remarkable figure. Considering the timeframe in the war, the performance difference between the two aircraft, the horrible conditions in New Guinea, the supply issues - those Ki-43 pilots and groundcrew put up an extraordinary effort. Again thanks very much for following up. I look forward to reading the book when it arrives!
It should be recalled that America’s number 2 ace, Thomas McGuire, was turned into the ground by a Ki-43 pilot pretty late in the war. I also remember a Report in the Osprey Ki-44 report by no less an expert ace than Col. David Lee “Tex” Hill, who describes being outflown by a Ki-44 pilot over China. He was in a P-51! Near war’s end, ki-84 “Frank,” first identified as “Oscar II” by the Americans, had excellent flight characteristics. This was found to be especially true in post-war tests using American 100 Octane av gas. Japanese engineering was absolutely on a par with the West. It was just the finer points of production and lack of technicians that was most telling. Further obscuring the issue was the absolute material and quantitative superiority of the American Naval and USAAF combat planes in the Pacific.
The reason that it was reported that Japanese aircraft could not turn was due to compression at speed. If the fight was basically horizontal with the A6M speeds less than 250 MPH no U.S. or British aircraft could turn with them.
The ‘they were copycats’ jab has always bothered me because, putting aside how obviously untrue it is to anybody with a lick of sense, wouldn’t that actually make the Japanese MORE impressive? If I gave my friend Alex a car, and then a week later he had built an entire logistical network, supply chain, tooling production and fully staffed factory to churn out *better versions* of that car, I’d be terrified.
I would ask him next time how the Japanese reacted to the Thach Wave. When you read articles about the Pacific War, it looks like the Zeros were doomed once the Americans discovered that maneuver and it was only a waiting game for the superior American fighters to appear later in the war. Thank you!
How many times was the Enterprise claimed as sunk, I wonder? As for other overclaim issues, were gun cameras not a solution for this or was the camera often not oriented in the right direction to verify a kill as the stricken plane perhaps spun out of frame. Or was the case often a smoking plane that made it back to base but was claimed as a kill?
Usually the latter. Plane is seen going down but its pilot manages to recover and make it back to base. Or sometimes there is the case where 3 planes are shooting at one target, target goes down, all 3 of them claim a kill.
Excellent job, guys, on my favorite subject. Keep up the good work. I have one question though: My reference material from over 50 years refers to the IJNAF and IJAAF, using the word "force" instead of "service" which I'm starting to see and hear in just the last few years. Can you comment on this?
One could argue that there are differences between them. E.g. Force could be independent, Service isn't - but then we have many exceptions, starting with USAAF. Overall, I think service is more common nowadays but I don't think it matters much in common parlance.
Excellent. My Grandfather was part of allied Air intelligence unit based in Brisbane Australia they test flew captured zero osca and Tony at eagle farm. He commented that the licence built engines had many failures lubrication related do you have any reports of such issues thanks
Hey! The Ki-61's Ha-40 engine (and the fuel injection system) gave mechanics a lot of headaches. Serviceability apparently did improve through the war, at least until the whole Japanese war effort started to seize up, but it remained a downside of the Ki-61.
Did the Japanese Army have as stringent training regimens as the Navy? The navy has small classes that they didn't really expand until too late and the requirements to get into and then pass training limited the number of pilots the Navy would ever have.
It seems like there is a trend that historians go back and take a deeper dive into the primary source data only after all the people who were actually there have died off. I have aviation history books dating from the 1960's and 70's that relate cherished tales and statistics that have since been disputed and or disproved.
A lot also has to do with the availability of sources. A lot new material has emerged and the initial historian generation had plenty of homegrown files to go through first! It's only natural that some things see revision and change as new information is found.
Very interesting, I will be here for all of them! Particularly interested in the Japanese army AF. On reflection, I know absolutely nothing about it. I know Zero, in fact - and nothing about the rest...
Thanks for the reply! I've even listened to Saburo Sakai and Masatake Okumiya's memoirs on TH-cam - Okumiya's is very interesting operationally - but they are both Navy men...
The attack on Pearl was a B+. Even if the Japanese navy managed to get all the battle ships and the carriers as well (not at Pearl), the U.S. would have regrouped although it would have taken much more time. As it turns out, the A bomb would have still ended the war in 1945 no matter how perfect the attack on Pearl was.
Ich hab mir damals als Kind (erste Mal "Pearl Harbour") noch nichts dabei gedacht, dass ein amerikanischer USAC/USAAF Pilot, der in den Staaten P-40 flog, dann freiwillig nach England ging um für die RAF in Spitfires gegen Bf-109/Bf-110/Do-17+217/He-111/Ju-88+87 zu kämpfen, nach Hause (Pearl Harbour) kommt und beim Angriff der Japaner am 7. Dezember weiß, dass die P-40 keine Zero/A6M2 auskurven kann! Irgendwann dachte ich mir dann, woher soll er das (gerade aus dem europäischen Kriegsschauplatz kommend) wissen!? Dank eurem Video weiß ich nun, dass er laut Handbuch genau vom Gegenteil ausgehen musste. Auch der Kanal "The fat Elictrician" erwähnte, dass die P-40 in China (AVG) hit and run Taktiken verwendete, da die japansichen Maschinen besser kurven konnten, gut dass mag allerdings von Erfahrungen des Gründers her stammen, der selbst eigene Erfahrungen in China geasammelt hatte.
You mentioned at the end that Japanese aircraft were considered copies of Allied aircraft. Was there influence the other way? did the West look at the zero and say "Maybe radial engines on a fighter is a good idea?"
If, contrary to common belief, the IJN had moved on from dogfighting as their primary tactic, it sounds like maybe it was early war US pilots who were behind the curve on energy tactics, but the A6M was still a superior dogfighter.
You could make that argument, yes. I think it's important to note that dogfights still occurred throughout the war. There's a misconception that I see quite often online where people assume a preference for a particular manner of combat meant that was the only type of combat that occurred. Put simply, you couldn't guarantee that you would have a sufficient advantage in airspeed or altitude to hit-and-run. That's even setting aside how a lot of aircraft were shot down - they had no idea they were engaged to begin with.
I think the issue with the Zero is the lack of armor protection and ruggedness. It could be a pain for pretty much anything to face, even late war, but it required a good pilot. And as Japan lost the initial ones it had, the replacements never got to develop the necessary experience to fully utilize the plane due to the lack of ruggedness. The strength of the allied planes was that they kept less experienced pilots alive, making them both more effective at the start of their career and giving them time to hone their skills. I reckon part of why there is a general reliance on the allied records, besides the language barrier, is all those records that were destroyed at the end of the war. Has to make it a bigger pain to do research.
I see two issues that tend to happen for authoritarian government in there military time after time. The first one is stats optimizing. The M6 Zero for example is fast, maneuverable, have long range, more so then say American planes at the time. Its far to easy to say that Japanese was just better at making planes, but here i would say the authoritarian government and the internet warriors are doing the same mistake. Stats optimization. We select the 4-5 most important stats and try to fill them as good as possible. While american planes had a more coherent over all design. One is fire power. While it very early on (before USA entered the war) Japan found out that the 7.7 lack the range of the larger calibers. The larger guns was retrofitted, and they could only fit one in each wing. This was party true for UK and Germany as well, but consider Hurricane and spitfire upgraded typically from 8 7,7 to eventually 4 20mm that was still considerably higher fire power. And US aircraft mostly had 6 12.7mm guns, that allowed mid range, but considerably higher fire rate. I would also think that the 7,7 and 20mm mix was sub optimal considering that most European fighters (that also started of 7,7mm) eventually went to a 12,7 and 20 mix or a pure 20mm configuration. Again something M6 could not due to size and weight constraints. The US planes was also considerably sturdier, some thing Japanese naval aircraft designer simply had no choice in the matter. If they want to fly fast and long distance with a low power engine, building it light was the only option on the table. The effect of this is that american planes hit by a few bullet often made it back, or some times manage to crash close to there own lines to be rescued, while Japanese tend to not make it back. Apart form that the pilot rescue service tend to work better on the US side. While Japan may have had the better pilots early in the war. Those degraded faster than on the US side. Also have to consider that when USA push forward the Japanese supply lines did become shooter, gaining back some of there ability. But at this time USA fielded aircraft with simulacra or better stats optimized performance while also being a better all around weapon of war. The radio and radar was also a similar issue like that. The fact that US fighters could be guided to target of known quantities gave them a huge advantage. Maybe possibly the largest advantage of them all. That the claimed shutdown was exaggerated during the war was well known even at the time. According to the famous french fighter pilot a reasonable estimation would be to take British fighter reports and divide them by 2, american by 3 and bomber crew by 7. This was written during the war, and after war data (that is between western front and Germany, so not the Japanese front) showed this was a fairly accurate estimate. While the force of operation may be fairly balanced the first year USA entered (with US having better operations, while Japanese had more experience), when the experience started to even up there was just no way Japan would won by that point. On top of that did USA both outproduce and out developed the Japanese. The other part is exercise. And i would say this is one point where Russia failed really hard in Ukraine. They did very little exercise, so a lot of there system was not cross compatible. And of cause, exercise is really freaking expensive and give you as a totalitarian nation nothing unless you go to war. I would say, this is probobly the most important factor of everything
Personally it seems this guy is very biased. There are a lot of contradictions he makes, 'it makes it into the manual that the Zero lacks maneuverability', no it clearly says it avoids acrobatics nothing about it's actual ability to do them. Starting of a comment about the lack of radios on Zeros with 'did it work [without radios]? often it did' seems like a foolish comment. While I can appreciate a lot of understanding of Japanese tactics is hit with the 'they lost, so they must have always been bad', I feel like this guy is overly defending and justifying the failures the IJA and IJN made in the air to be contrarian.
Justin comes in to beat another dead horse. How often will he be hosted in these things to say Western historiography is racist and hasn't changed since the early 60's. This is even when he quotes works going back to the 80's and he demonstrates an uncritical view of eastern sources because they can't possibly be biased or with agenda.
has a New Zealand I find the perception of pacific and Asian theater seen has a America vs japan conflict only it angered me. This perception is wrong why I now my county plus the Australians and dutch east indies and India and United kingdom were fighting against the japan too so would like there war reports to be use too in this discussion
Pearl Harbor happened 21 yrs before I was born. But I got to see it...well, sort of. In 1969 I lived in on Oahu on the west side of the inlet to Pearl Harbor. One day I walked out my front door and saw a large formation of Japanese Zeros flying low over the jungle right near my house LOL. I ran back inside and said "mom, didn't we already beat them?!" LOL. My mom chuckled and said "oh, they're filming a movie about the bombing of Pearl Harbor"; i.e. "Tora, Tora, Tora"
That’s neat
Lucky Boy! You witnessed the making of one of the greatest WWII aviation movies ever, the other being "The Battle of Britain", made around the same time IIRC! I was born exactly 22 years after the Kido Butai left Hittokappu Bay, so i'm a young chap too! Regards!
My Mom's brother was one of the engineers putting together the structures that were destroyed in that film, mostly the ship elements. It is very cool that you have that memory "... hey, didn't we already beat them?" 'Gotta grin.
@@gyrene_asea4133 My Dad took us out to Ford Island where a lot of the film was shot. It was a Sunday so the entire production had the day off. We still have 7m camera film of me and my siblings lifting what looks like large chunks of concrete that were actually styrofoam cut and painted to look like broken concrete. An actual P40 that had been strafed during the attack in 1941 was dragged out of a hangar where it had been mothballed so it could be used as a prop. The landing gear was bent and it had bullet holes on one of the wings. Apparently, when the attack happened the pilot was strafed while he was taxiing down the runway, swerved a bit and hit some debris and bent the landing gear. Me and my older brother got into a heated argument because he wouldn't get out of the cockpit LOL. We were actually able to get up close to the radio control mockups of the Zeros. They were 2/3rd the size of the real ones and had dummies in the cockpits. It was a once in a lifetime experience for sure...
@@GTX1123 that’s actually hilarious, i’ve lived on oahu island aswell and pearl harbor inspired my interest in war history.
i can imagine the quick burst of terror you got.
I've a friend who is a Japanese speaking historian and its always interesting to hear about just how distorted a lot of war histories are in English due to so many historians relying solely on secondary sources or western sources for details about the Japanese military. The view is very different from those who have gone into the primary sources - so thanks very much for this, it's enlightening and good to see so many myths about Japanese fighting busted.
You should try out the book “Shattered Sword” by John Parshall. It’s about what really happened during the battle of Midway from the Japanese side of things. It’s a really well done book
@@dogloversrule8476 Thanks for the recommendation, that book looks really good, I've ordered it.
@ you’re welcome, glad I could help you enlarge your collection
Yeah! I mean, comfort girls were really girls bestowing comfort to us hard working jap soldiers!! How on earth could the Anglo-Saxons have mistranslated this into forced gangbsnging and prostitution ?!?!
Can confirm about shattered sword. Can also recommend "the unauthorized history of the pacific podcast" John is a pretty regular guest there and its a great blow by blow of the pacific war.
"How smart people all over the world confronted the same technical problems." That's 'the rub,'; there is always a better mousetrap, but the iterations of inovation are amazing. What a wonderful show. Thank you.
I've read in Prados's "Combined Fleet Decoded" that the Ki-61 was codenamed "Tony" because they believed that it was a licence built copy of an Italian Macchi C.202 fighter, which totally makes sense when you look at them because both use the DB 601.
I've read accounts dating from the war where it was often reported as a 109 by Allied air crew as well. At the time it was a commonly held belief the Japanese were using German fighters and they were expected to be encountered. Ironically Japan did in fact acquire a few Bf-109s before PH for testing
There was a combat veteran of the 475th fighter group out of New Guinea that thought the Ki61 was an Me109 until the day he passed away. There was a veteran of the 14th AAF in China that became General and still referred to Ki43 Oscar's as "zeros" at the turn of the century.
Takeo Doi the main designer of the Ki 61 did a sort of apprenticeship at Blohm and Voss working with Richard Vogt who also did work for Kawasaki. Doi was influenced by European designs particularly the Hienkel He100 and variants.
@@icewaterslim7260 Ki-43s being reported as a A6M Zeros I can understand since they do have somewhat similar profiles and pilots often had the only briefest of opportunities to ID an AC. In a way every Japanese fighter became a Zero in much the same way every German tank became a Tiger
@@icewaterslim7260 In Edward Peary Stafford's The Big E there a few passages where engagements with Messerschmitts are mentioned which we know today were more than likely with Ki-61s
Yeah understood and it would probably be typical but you'd think someone who had become a General would've learned enough about the theater in which he fought would eventually learn exactly who he fought and their equipment. Inland China would've fought Imperial Army. Tex Hill had it right and he was an original AVG pilot.
Really great to see another generation of people researching more details about WWll history. Thank you for sharing what you find.
Years ago I read "Blossoms in the Wind", a book about survivors of the various Kamikaze programs. One of the interviewees was a Ki-44 shotai leader who saw late war replacement pilots stall and spin in because they tried to fly the Ki-44 like the Ki-43s they'd been trained on. Poor and inconsistent fuel received several mentions, one biplane pilot survived because his engine failed and his survival instincts kicked in when he landed in the water. It's not an aviation book but it's the only English language book I know that explores the kamikaze from the Japanese survivor's perspective.
Oh, and another point about Japanese radios: Every nation had radio problems at the start of the war due to precipitation static and the weather in the South Pacific was a lot more turbulent that either side anticipated. The US assembled a research team that largely solved the problem but the Japanese did not have the necessary resources. Poorly shielded ignition systems contributed to their problems but the underlying issue was atmospheric physics.
The Japanese and Americans had a good excuse, in the long list of British military incompetence in 1941 was the constant failure of radio in the air and on the ground.
Imagine fighting on your "home ground" and being constantly surprised by conditions.
@@danielstickney2400 great recommendation, another factor was also something involving differences in earth's magnetic field on the equator compared to the Japanese mainland.
justin's videos with drachinfel are amazing about the A6M, more from him is great!
@@Swagdonaldz completely concur. Justin’s expertise is formidable and was a complete match with Drach’s encyclopaedic knowledge
@@Swagdonaldz That is the most comprehensive historical assessment of the Zeke/Zero that you're going to be finding out there. Plus more of the aerial tactics of the Sino-Japanese war, some of which were repeated here.
Griaß di! Just wanted to share as a Bundeswehr Combat Veteran of the Gebirgsjägerbrigade 23 and Heeresbergführer, now working as Historian mainly for the IFZ in Munich nowadays that i'm really proud to see a German doing such great Videos regarding History on TH-cam. Usually it's just Americans or the British and your Content from all i watched (and shared with Colleagues) has been really good!
Now i personally didn't focus too much on the Luftwaffe in the past 10 Years, all of my Family were either in the W-SS, Gebirgsjäger or Fallschirmjäger (me myself also having served as Gebirgsjäger of the 23rd Gebirgsjägerbrigade with 2 Tours in Afghanistan, wounded by an IED in the 2nd Tour and 1 in Kosovo via KFOR) and currently helping out training Ukrainians via EUMAM-UA regarding "Harsh Terrain Warfare".
So it's nice to have some properly researched Content on Topics i'm not too educated on regarding WW2 that isn't either pure Clickbait or takes a lot of Liberties to leave out certain Facts or over-exaggerate other Facts just in Order to get more Views and Engagement in the Comments (sadly a very common Thing among certain popular "History" TH-cam Channels)
So keep up the good Work!
Prost & Cheers from the Snow-Covered Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps
A most informative discussion. It's always great to hear from Justin.
I would be also curious about the poor combat performance of the Spitfire Mk.Vb Trop and Vc Trop over Darwin, Australia, against the A6M2/A6M3 variants.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Was the Spitfire really inferior, or was it just used incorrectly?
The pilots used the wrong tactics. They came from Europe and were used to out turn the Germans. This did not work with the Japanese. After switching to American (or German) tactics, the Spitfire performed well but was handicapped by short range. Source: memoirs of George Kenney
There was the fighting on May 2nd 1943, the IJNAS had G4M1s (4th Kokutai I think) attacking Darwin with 27 A6M from Tainan Kokutai escorting them, they were engaged by 33 RAAF Spitfires.
The Japanese suffered seven Betties and seven Zeroes damaged, but no aircraft lost, in return the Australians suffered 14 Spitfires destroyed in the air.
Not sure but I believe the variants used were Mk.V Spitfires and A6M3. G4M1 had no official subvariants, only minor changes made during production, like different covers for the rear gunner, different exhaust layout or externally added rubber protection for wingtanks
A good book to read to learn about IJN naval doctrine & what not is John Parshall’s “Shattered Sword” which is about the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective using known doctrine of the time, surviving reports of the battle & more.
Yay! It's good to see Justin again. Good stuff.
Zeros appeared only late in the war against China. And just like Spitfires, "boom and zoom" was the preferred method of attack. However right after Pearl Harbor Chennault forwarded a memo about the Zero to US intelligence -based on his experience with USAF P-40s - sent in with the AVG - that P-40s should not try to turn with a Zero and, even more important, not to climb into an attack. As far as loss ratios go I think Lundstrom shows pretty conclusively that the Japanese Navy had the edge over Wildcats - but they were steadily losing the edge over Guadalcanal and by the end of 1942 the edge had gone to the US Marine Wildcats. My research indicates that something very similar took place in New Guinea. The one thing the P-40 and Wildcat had in common is that they could out-dive a Zero and matched them in speed at most altitudes And they were a lot more rugged - they paid for that with poor climb rates, but they could take a punch. Neither the Zero or the Oscar could. Of course one thing that was changing in 1942 is that the Japanese superiority .in pilot skills was steadily declining as US pilots gained more experience and Japanese pilots started losing more vets. BTW: one Japanese memoir that is badly overlooked but is, I believe, more reliable that "Samurai" is "Zero, The Inside Story of Japan's Air War in the Pacific" by Masatake Okumiya (with help of Martin Caidan). I would be very surprised if this book or "Samurai" had a Japanese edition. In the postwar era there was little eagerness in Japan to remember the "good old days" - in addition, the Japanese put much less store on the actions of individual fighting men and emphasized group efforts. "Requiem for Battleship Yamato" by Yosida Mitsuru was a dramatic exception. In the 1960s things started to loosen up a little - Admiral Hara's book about IJN destroyer actions was a good example., ditto with Jiro Horikoshi's memoir "Eagles of Mitsubishi." But I think the Japanese started to write about operational matters until this century. That's what makes the Strategic Bombing Survey - Pacific Edition - so valuable, all of that data came from Japanese sources. I'd also look at the Japanese end of the MacArthur Papers which includes a two volume history of Japanese operations written by former Japanese officers.
The Ki-61 "Tony" viewed from the side, resembles the He-100 more than any other aircraft. The cowling, cockpit and even vertical stabilizer and rudder resemble the Heinkel very obviously; only the addition of the radiator is different (the Heinkel has an entirely different and unusual cooling system). In planform, the Tony resembles the MC 202 design.
I'm always surprised no one notices the Ki-61 / He-100 resemblance. It's unmistakable.
Thank you for your content Chris!
Very interesting, educational, and entertaining. I look forward to the next ones. Thank you.
As a Japanese person, I appreciate your fair and intelligent analysis.
And my father also thought the KI-61 was a copy of the Messerschmitt.
I see Justin Pyke on japanese aviation and i click.
Really good video! I learn so much
Glad to hear that you enjoyed it
Superb, interesting content thank you!
Thank you!
Wow, you guys need to read Dunn's South Pacific Air War. He has a huge amount of Japanese operation data which refutes alot of the radiational narrative. You would enjoy it, completely backs this up
I knew it, never trust radiators!
Team body heat ✊
I haven't gotten to it yet, but I've been meaning to pick it up! His work on aircraft protection is fantastic.
Thanks!
What does the IJA and IJN doctrine say about CAP?
How many, where, what altitude, reinforcements on stand-by etc?
And how does that compare to USAAF/USN and RAF/RN?
Thank you so much, very appreciated! We will look and see what we find on this, hopefully we can discuss this in a future episode. I am not sure if we can find the raw doctrine files though, something to look into!
Can't tell for IJAAF, but at the beginning of Pacific War IJNAF relied on one flight from each carrier patrolling designated square around carrier task force. Flights were echeloned in height (for example: 2 flights on 2000 meters and 2 flights on 4000 meters). Ready flights stood on carrier decks to reinforce CAP when necessary. Formally each flight was subordinated to Direct defense commander (who was CV Gunnery officer) of his own carrier, but all CAP flights shared common frequency so each could call for help. Before Midway to compensate for some "slips" of observers unusual fighter direction technique was introduced - warships shot smoke rounds in the direction of incoming air attack which could easily be seen by both fighters in the air and other warships.
This was great! Thank you for presenting such a great series.
Would love to eventually see a series on Italy's air force in WW2 as well.
My great uncle was a zero pilot in the IJN. It seemed to me like the war was an off limit topic for him. All I ever heard about it was a story about him getting shot up badly and making it back to the carrier.
Really interesting video, especially how the army attitides were different from the navy. Id be really interested to see a deep dive on the Ki-84, which in my opinion was their best fighter and one of the best overall in the world, even better than the Navy's N1K2 in my opinion. Fast, good climb rate, good weaponry and still a great turn rate, interesting that you mention them actively trying to counter western designs even when still in the ki 43 mindset, iirc the ki 84 startes development pretty early into the 43s combat life
If you are not aware, the Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel has exactly what you want.
Great video, great information - I must now immediately dive into the the rest of these episodes! 😂
I was in college in the late 60s. Sometimes on Saturday nights, we would go down to the TV room and watch war movies, including air battles with the Japanese. What’s funny is that we had a Japanese exchange student with us who was laughing and rooting for TheJapanese fighters. It was all in good fun and, as I think back about it, it’s amazing that in as few as 20 years after the war, we could be on such good terms with the Japanese.
Brilliant episode. Thanks so much. Great to see more scholarship looking at the war from the Japanese PoV
Wonderful
Thank You 😃
Great video.
Did the rivalry between the Japanese Navy and army hurt Japan? For example the Nakajima Ki-43 and Mitsubishi A6M appear to have the same performance so why waste resources building both planes?
Great question, I‘ve noted it down for another episode
The rivalry wasn't just limited to the aircraft themselves: the imperial army and navy even used different but functionally equivalent autocannons and machine guns firing similar but incompatible cartridges. Navy guns wouldn't fit army planes, army guns couldn't fire navy cartridges, duplication and confusion all around.
It absolutely did. They competed for resources immensely.
The Ki-43 and A6M are quite different though so that isn't a good example, the Zero is carrier fighter that is bigger, marginally tougher, faster, and has greater range and better firepower whereas the Ki-43 is more nimble and smaller as well as being cheaper and quicker to produce. Both were designed and produced prior to Japan being on the back foot too. A better example of competing resources is the Army developing the Ki-84 and the Navy developing the N1K2-J at the same time in the late war period, both serving as land based interceptors in the same period against the same enemies. One could have been eliminated to save resources and more could have been produced of one design. Equipment-wise both branches had different weapons to accomplish the same goals, producing muiltple very different 20mm cannons for example instead of just focusing on one design and using it for both branches.
Other examples of the Navy and Army rivalry causing issues is the inability for the two branches to support each other, the Navy often refusing to assist Army islands under threat and vice versa. Both branches were very reluctant to engage in combat to protect the other if there was any chance of losing their own units in the process. The Navy actually didn't warn the Army about the midway defeat until months after it happened.
The Army ended up producing it's own ships too, both transport vessels and combat vessels, as well as two escort carriers because they outright refused to collaborate with the Navy whenever possible. A huge waste of resources to make a small seperate Army controlled naval force instead of just working together. Hell, particularly in the pre-war period, staged assassinations of the other branches officers was not unheard of
@@danielstickney2400 That problem was not confined to the air forces; as I understand it, the Japanese Army had seven different and incompatible rifle cartridges, creating a logistical nightmare that, on several occasions, resulted in units having a copious supply of ammunition they couldn't use, while being horribly short on the ammunition for their weaponry.
Could you maybe also do a part of this series with Drachinifel? His specialization is in warships which would allow him to have some interesting inputs & insights when discussing IJN carrier doctrine.
Also, can you please do a series like this for the US Army Air Corps & USN in WW2 Pacific as well?
Right now we are compiling more video ideas, so I'll definitely add this!
Amazing Video!
This is awesome! Its nice to see something besides a "bf-109 tactic against 'X' allied plane" themed video 😅. I know thats not all you do, but I adore Japanese planes for some reason. So to see my favorite aviation youtuber cover my favorite planes in depth makes my day. Thanks keep up the great work!
Thanks, will do!
Did you have 七十年代? My late father was a sailor, and he used to bring back that magazine from (probably) China.
Thanks for this Christopher.
Considering the forensic, obsessive accounts and investigations of air combat in Europe, I am most surprised how facile is the coverage of air combat and Japanese capabilities in Malaya, Burma, and certain other campaigns.
The RAF had been at war for two years and won the Battle if Britain. Faced with a similar mission in December 1941, they were swept from the skies by a foe with (compared to the Luftwaffe) grossly inferior equipment.
Hey I would love to hear about japanese twin engine fighters, both in navy and army service : Ki 45, J1N, Ki 46...We never hear anything about them !
Thanks for the suggestion!
Excellent video
I remember reading that Army pilots were appalled by the lack of firepower of the Ki43.
This is a great topic!
Ps. The Ki-61 looks more like the 109 to me than the Macchi but to each his own. The Japanese did have a 109E around.
Aloha! This is an excellent discussion. Mahalo and All hail the Algorithm!
Thanks for the analysis. From what I've read and recall, the Japanese Navy evolved a three-aircraft formation attack by the time of Midway (June 1942). Despite being more spread out than the British Vic formation, it still tied two wingmen to a lead element. This seems like a good tactic against bombers (torpedo, glide and dive), but not as effective against two and four-plane fighter formations that could maneuver.
Had they been able to work together, the Army and Navy aircraft could have been the same. The Zero and Oscar could have been like the Seafire/Spitfire, or the postwar McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, where there are carrier and land-based variants.
In 1939/1940, French pilots were eagerly awaiting seatback armor for their M.S.406s. There are some interesting first-hand accounts.
Over Guadalcanal 3 aces basically did a airshow in tight 3 plane formation. The marines were so empressed that antiaircraft rounds stopped and these aces did an airshow over Henderson. Back at their base the CO of the aces was pissed and yelled at these great combat pilots
That was from Saburo Sakai's account wasn't it? Iirc that was over Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, not Henderson in Guadacanal..
@emilchan5379 opps. Yes
Hi Chris, in a previous video on the Pacific air war (and I'm pretty sure it was with Justin too) you mentioned the kill/loss ration of the Ki-43 v P-47 in New Guinea being 1:2. Which is remarkable. Would you know what reference was used for that figure? No worries at all if its too hard to track down. And I'm only asking because i made a comment about it on one of Gregs Automobile and Airplanes videos, where he went into depth about the p-47 in the New Guinea theatre. And Greg replied requesting further detail...but again, not hugely important at all. :)
Quick fire answer from Justin: Claringbould P-47 v Ki-43, the ratio favoured the P-47.
@ Amazing! And thanks Justin - what a champion for following up. I've just ordered the book. Such an interesting piece of history - and one not well known. I have just finished the excellent novel "Nanette" - the love story between a P-39 Pilot and his plane - set in New Guinea. A beautiful read. Thanks again Chris!
@@Charger44 Hey! I figured I'd pop in as well since I was able to check the book quickly on my lunch break. It looks like you just got the ratio flipped around. Happens to all of us! It was, with a number of important caveats you can see outlined in the book, 2:1 in favour of the P-47. That's far lower than what the Americans thought based on their claims, which is par for the course.
P-47 pilots claimed ~121 victories against Ki-43s from August 1943 to April 1944. For their part, the Ki-43 pilots claimed ~60 victories against P-47s. The actual number, again with caveats, was 19 Ki-43s lost against 9 or 10 P-47s.
@ Thanks a bunch mate! Appreciate that. Even with the correction and all the caveats, it is a remarkable figure. Considering the timeframe in the war, the performance difference between the two aircraft, the horrible conditions in New Guinea, the supply issues - those Ki-43 pilots and groundcrew put up an extraordinary effort.
Again thanks very much for following up. I look forward to reading the book when it arrives!
The Ki-61 shared the same engine as the BF 109 E, but had better stats because the airframe was more streamlined.
It should be recalled that America’s number 2 ace, Thomas McGuire, was turned into the ground by a Ki-43 pilot pretty late in the war.
I also remember a Report in the Osprey Ki-44 report by no less an expert ace than Col. David Lee “Tex” Hill, who describes being outflown by a Ki-44 pilot over China. He was in a P-51!
Near war’s end, ki-84 “Frank,” first identified as “Oscar II” by the Americans, had excellent flight characteristics. This was found to be especially true in post-war tests using American 100 Octane av gas.
Japanese engineering was absolutely on a par with the West. It was just the finer points of production and lack of technicians that was most telling. Further obscuring the issue was the absolute material and quantitative superiority of the American Naval and USAAF combat planes in the Pacific.
The reason that it was reported that Japanese aircraft could not turn was due to compression at speed. If the fight was basically horizontal with the A6M speeds less than 250 MPH no U.S. or British aircraft could turn with them.
The ‘they were copycats’ jab has always bothered me because, putting aside how obviously untrue it is to anybody with a lick of sense, wouldn’t that actually make the Japanese MORE impressive? If I gave my friend Alex a car, and then a week later he had built an entire logistical network, supply chain, tooling production and fully staffed factory to churn out *better versions* of that car, I’d be terrified.
Oh
Until I watched this I didn't know how much of what I 'know' is wrong
Brilliant
Fundamentally, the Schwarm/Finger Four doesn’t work if you don't have radios.
The Italian aircraft you reference also was designed with the using the same DB-601 engine.
Yes!
What is the video, which you guys talk about, where the Japanese were flying against the Focke Wolf?
It may be covered in future episodes. I'd like to hear about British fighter and Japanese fighter engagements and tactics.
On the list
I would ask him next time how the Japanese reacted to the Thach Wave. When you read articles about the Pacific War, it looks like the Zeros were doomed once the Americans discovered that maneuver and it was only a waiting game for the superior American fighters to appear later in the war. Thank you!
the thach weave was a one trick pony and easily countrered. Japanese planes would dive when both planes are furthest apart.
@jerry5876 thank you! I thought that, but when you read the usual narrative of the Zero it looks like the plane never overcame that.
"The footage we see of Japanese fighters are mostly in cruise flight."
Yeah... or strategically falling out of the in flames 😂
19:28 - man.. imagine being adviced to turn fight a Zero... Maybe that also helped with the early success of the Japanese in the war.
This subject needs to see more information out, the Luftwaffe also as far as units and so on.
How many times was the Enterprise claimed as sunk, I wonder?
As for other overclaim issues, were gun cameras not a solution for this or was the camera often not oriented in the right direction to verify a kill as the stricken plane perhaps spun out of frame. Or was the case often a smoking plane that made it back to base but was claimed as a kill?
Usually the latter. Plane is seen going down but its pilot manages to recover and make it back to base.
Or sometimes there is the case where 3 planes are shooting at one target, target goes down, all 3 of them claim a kill.
Excellent job, guys, on my favorite subject. Keep up the good work. I have one question though: My reference material from over 50 years refers to the IJNAF and IJAAF, using the word "force" instead of "service" which I'm starting to see and hear in just the last few years. Can you comment on this?
One could argue that there are differences between them. E.g. Force could be independent, Service isn't - but then we have many exceptions, starting with USAAF. Overall, I think service is more common nowadays but I don't think it matters much in common parlance.
Excellent. My Grandfather was part of allied
Air intelligence unit based in Brisbane Australia they test flew captured zero osca and Tony at eagle farm. He commented that the licence built engines had many failures lubrication related do you have any reports of such issues thanks
Hey! The Ki-61's Ha-40 engine (and the fuel injection system) gave mechanics a lot of headaches. Serviceability apparently did improve through the war, at least until the whole Japanese war effort started to seize up, but it remained a downside of the Ki-61.
I'd love to know Waa the rotation direction the same as german engines
Did the Japanese Army have as stringent training regimens as the Navy? The navy has small classes that they didn't really expand until too late and the requirements to get into and then pass training limited the number of pilots the Navy would ever have.
It seems like there is a trend that historians go back and take a deeper dive into the primary source data only after all the people who were actually there have died off. I have aviation history books dating from the 1960's and 70's that relate cherished tales and statistics that have since been disputed and or disproved.
A lot also has to do with the availability of sources. A lot new material has emerged and the initial historian generation had plenty of homegrown files to go through first! It's only natural that some things see revision and change as new information is found.
Form follows function.
Primary sources! Yay!
Very interesting, I will be here for all of them! Particularly interested in the Japanese army AF. On reflection, I know absolutely nothing about it. I know Zero, in fact - and nothing about the rest...
It's quite natural, in both the historiography and Hollywood, Zero does tend to take the spotlight in anything that has to do with air and Japan
Thanks for the reply! I've even listened to Saburo Sakai and Masatake Okumiya's memoirs on TH-cam - Okumiya's is very interesting operationally - but they are both Navy men...
The attack on Pearl was a B+. Even if the Japanese navy managed to get all the battle ships and the carriers as well (not at Pearl), the U.S. would have regrouped although it would have taken much more time. As it turns out, the A bomb would have still ended the war in 1945 no matter how perfect the attack on Pearl was.
Got popcorn and Coke, lets enjoy something great, when is EP 4 coming On air?
Ich hab mir damals als Kind (erste Mal "Pearl Harbour") noch nichts dabei gedacht, dass ein amerikanischer USAC/USAAF Pilot, der in den Staaten P-40 flog, dann freiwillig nach England ging um für die RAF in Spitfires gegen Bf-109/Bf-110/Do-17+217/He-111/Ju-88+87 zu kämpfen, nach Hause (Pearl Harbour) kommt und beim Angriff der Japaner am 7. Dezember weiß, dass die P-40 keine Zero/A6M2 auskurven kann! Irgendwann dachte ich mir dann, woher soll er das (gerade aus dem europäischen Kriegsschauplatz kommend) wissen!? Dank eurem Video weiß ich nun, dass er laut Handbuch genau vom Gegenteil ausgehen musste. Auch der Kanal "The fat Elictrician" erwähnte, dass die P-40 in China (AVG) hit and run Taktiken verwendete, da die japansichen Maschinen besser kurven konnten, gut dass mag allerdings von Erfahrungen des Gründers her stammen, der selbst eigene Erfahrungen in China geasammelt hatte.
You mentioned at the end that Japanese aircraft were considered copies of Allied aircraft. Was there influence the other way? did the West look at the zero and say "Maybe radial engines on a fighter is a good idea?"
I think racism got in the way of that... why would you copy the design of an airforce you consider inferior?
Some WWI fighters had radial engines so it's not like the idea was unknown.
If, contrary to common belief, the IJN had moved on from dogfighting as their primary tactic, it sounds like maybe it was early war US pilots who were behind the curve on energy tactics, but the A6M was still a superior dogfighter.
Lol, why fight like a dog when you can strike like an eagle?
You could make that argument, yes. I think it's important to note that dogfights still occurred throughout the war. There's a misconception that I see quite often online where people assume a preference for a particular manner of combat meant that was the only type of combat that occurred. Put simply, you couldn't guarantee that you would have a sufficient advantage in airspeed or altitude to hit-and-run. That's even setting aside how a lot of aircraft were shot down - they had no idea they were engaged to begin with.
Reality is always more complex.
On December 7th of last year I got a Shiba Inu puppy and we named him Emperor Hirohito because we find that funny.
Hirohito is just the same evil leader that has soooooo much blood on his hands. MacArthur made a mistake to absolve this weasel.
Has anyone done an in-depth look at Kenney's 5th Air Force's campaign across New Guinea? Kenney's 5th Air Force annihilated Japanese air forces.
Comment
I think the issue with the Zero is the lack of armor protection and ruggedness. It could be a pain for pretty much anything to face, even late war, but it required a good pilot. And as Japan lost the initial ones it had, the replacements never got to develop the necessary experience to fully utilize the plane due to the lack of ruggedness. The strength of the allied planes was that they kept less experienced pilots alive, making them both more effective at the start of their career and giving them time to hone their skills.
I reckon part of why there is a general reliance on the allied records, besides the language barrier, is all those records that were destroyed at the end of the war. Has to make it a bigger pain to do research.
Shotai! Chutai! Thank God they didn't use the hentai!
I see two issues that tend to happen for authoritarian government in there military time after time.
The first one is stats optimizing.
The M6 Zero for example is fast, maneuverable, have long range, more so then say American planes at the time. Its far to easy to say that Japanese was just better at making planes, but here i would say the authoritarian government and the internet warriors are doing the same mistake. Stats optimization.
We select the 4-5 most important stats and try to fill them as good as possible. While american planes had a more coherent over all design.
One is fire power. While it very early on (before USA entered the war) Japan found out that the 7.7 lack the range of the larger calibers. The larger guns was retrofitted, and they could only fit one in each wing. This was party true for UK and Germany as well, but consider Hurricane and spitfire upgraded typically from 8 7,7 to eventually 4 20mm that was still considerably higher fire power. And US aircraft mostly had 6 12.7mm guns, that allowed mid range, but considerably higher fire rate. I would also think that the 7,7 and 20mm mix was sub optimal considering that most European fighters (that also started of 7,7mm) eventually went to a 12,7 and 20 mix or a pure 20mm configuration. Again something M6 could not due to size and weight constraints.
The US planes was also considerably sturdier, some thing Japanese naval aircraft designer simply had no choice in the matter. If they want to fly fast and long distance with a low power engine, building it light was the only option on the table. The effect of this is that american planes hit by a few bullet often made it back, or some times manage to crash close to there own lines to be rescued, while Japanese tend to not make it back. Apart form that the pilot rescue service tend to work better on the US side.
While Japan may have had the better pilots early in the war. Those degraded faster than on the US side. Also have to consider that when USA push forward the Japanese supply lines did become shooter, gaining back some of there ability. But at this time USA fielded aircraft with simulacra or better stats optimized performance while also being a better all around weapon of war.
The radio and radar was also a similar issue like that. The fact that US fighters could be guided to target of known quantities gave them a huge advantage. Maybe possibly the largest advantage of them all.
That the claimed shutdown was exaggerated during the war was well known even at the time. According to the famous french fighter pilot a reasonable estimation would be to take British fighter reports and divide them by 2, american by 3 and bomber crew by 7. This was written during the war, and after war data (that is between western front and Germany, so not the Japanese front) showed this was a fairly accurate estimate.
While the force of operation may be fairly balanced the first year USA entered (with US having better operations, while Japanese had more experience), when the experience started to even up there was just no way Japan would won by that point.
On top of that did USA both outproduce and out developed the Japanese.
The other part is exercise. And i would say this is one point where Russia failed really hard in Ukraine. They did very little exercise, so a lot of there system was not cross compatible. And of cause, exercise is really freaking expensive and give you as a totalitarian nation nothing unless you go to war.
I would say, this is probobly the most important factor of everything
Please do something about B24 and there missions in the pacific
Personally it seems this guy is very biased. There are a lot of contradictions he makes, 'it makes it into the manual that the Zero lacks maneuverability', no it clearly says it avoids acrobatics nothing about it's actual ability to do them. Starting of a comment about the lack of radios on Zeros with 'did it work [without radios]? often it did' seems like a foolish comment. While I can appreciate a lot of understanding of Japanese tactics is hit with the 'they lost, so they must have always been bad', I feel like this guy is overly defending and justifying the failures the IJA and IJN made in the air to be contrarian.
I find it funny Japanese radios in their planes sucked.
Justin comes in to beat another dead horse. How often will he be hosted in these things to say Western historiography is racist and hasn't changed since the early 60's. This is even when he quotes works going back to the 80's and he demonstrates an uncritical view of eastern sources because they can't possibly be biased or with agenda.
has a New Zealand I find the perception of pacific and Asian theater seen has a America vs japan conflict only it angered me. This perception is wrong why I now my county plus the Australians and dutch east indies and India and United kingdom were fighting against the japan too so would like there war reports to be use too in this discussion
Hoping to do more Malaya, New Guinea et all!
Zekes and Oscars and other Japanese planes didnt have self sealing fuel tanks. Big mistake!
Japan and Germany never got proximity fuse.
Great video!