Request tacticle help for USN planes

[JtD]

Even in game the carrier based USN fighters are better than carrier based IJN fighters in all around performance. Of course, they don't turn on a dime.

[ElAurens]

Up until late 42/early 43 the Japanese were the best trained combat pilots in the world, hands down, especially the IJN. They washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force in the world.

This coupled with the poor tactical doctrine that the Allies started the war with (the dogfight), created the perfect storm for them in the first year or so of the war.

This insane training regime also was the downfall of the Japanese air arm.
They simply could not keep up with losses as the Allies adapted their tactics, and aircraft, to thawrt the Japanese.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Up until late 42/early 43 the Japanese were the best trained combat pilots in the world, hands down, especially the IJN. They washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force in the world.

This coupled with the poor tactical doctrine that the Allies started the war with (the dogfight), created the perfect storm for them in the first year or so of the war.

This insane training regime also was the downfall of the Japanese air arm.
They simply could not keep up with losses as the Allies adapted their tactics, and aircraft, to thawrt the Japanese.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Most rigorously trained, maybe. Tough? Hell yeah. Best?

USN & USMC pilots facing Zeros for the second time usually came away with about equal results, and by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign, flying Wildcats, were well ahead in terms of victories to losses. Like the Finns, they had a very high standard of gunnery, and men who were acknowledged the best shots in the pre-war competitions were very successful when they got their chances (hint: Thach, O'Hare, and a guy named McCampbell were considered among the best marksmen in the USN-what a coincidence!). They were a tight-knit community who eagerly traded tips and tactics whenever they met, so Thach's weave and a clearer picture of Japanese capabilities and tendencies got around quickly in 1942. We tend to forget that the prewar US military could only afford to train and keep the very best, out of a much larger population pool than was available to Japan; the RAF and RCAF were the happy recipients of the services of a great many American aces and leaders who washed out of or were refused even the chance to get into USAAF and USN training.

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection, in many cases having years of combat experience, and all quite well-informed of their opponents' aircraft performances vs their own mounts, did not adjust well to changing circumstances and tactical innovations by their opponents and paid the price. Their training had also made them slaves to doctrine.

That doesn't square with my understanding of 'best' training.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

Originally Posted by horseback

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection...

Sounds like a quote from history channel.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by JtD

Sounds like a quote from history channel.

Well, every once in a while, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn. If you can cite one performance/tactical advantage that the F4F or even the F2A held over the A6M series besides the ones I mentioned, you win a prize.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

High speed maneuverability.

What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?

[horseback]

Originally Posted by JtD

High speed maneuverability.

What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?

I think I mentioned that, but PM me; I just made a batch of my special Cinco de Mayo baked beans for my reconquista neighbors. I'll send you a jar, if you like.

Judges' decisions on any further entries are final.

cheers

horseback

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by JtD

High speed maneuverability.
What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?

This is the key to escaping the Zero... Chinnault's Tigers were doing this before Pearl Harbour in P40's... just that back home they didn't know how to read combat reports.

The Zero had limited top speed (around 390 kph) for maneuverability in the rolling axis, where it's ailerons locked due to compressibility. The wing profile that gave it's high maneuverability at low speeds, suddenly had big limitations at high speed.

The Allies learned about this very quickly and used the high speed roll to escape or out-maneuver the Zero.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Most rigorously trained, maybe. Tough? Hell yeah. Best?

Arguably, in terms of victories scored, the top Japanese aces were superior to the top American aces. OTOH, in terms of kill ratios after the first 6-12 months of the war the U.S. mopped the floor with the Japanese in terms of kill ratios.

Your posts - not just the one above - point out some extremely important difference between IJN and IJAAF and American pilots. The Americans had lots of little, intangible differences which came from, essentially, being American. And, I DON'T say that in a jingoistic sense - it's little things like greater population, better diet, more robust manufacturing base and higher levels of personal initiative which was based as much on American culture as U.S. military training.

Additionally, I think that one of the huge things that help destroy Japanese air power is that most Japanese pilots were enlisted men, and ALL Japanese pilots were treated as being fundamentally expendable by their high command. That was reflected in everything from airplane design to quality of survival equipment. Saburo Sakai mentions this in his memoir.

Originally Posted by horseback

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection, in many cases having years of combat experience, and all quite well-informed of their opponents' aircraft performances vs their own mounts, did not adjust well to changing circumstances and tactical innovations by their opponents and paid the price. Their training had also made them slaves to doctrine.

To be fair, this is because the Japanese were increasingly isolated and had progressively less ability to train due to the changing fortunes of war.

What might have been a factor is that the Japanese had a very authoritarian culture before and during WW2. Even today, in situations where national culture prevents subordinates from pointing out their errors of their superiors, tragedy can ensue. For example, until accident investigators figured this out, Korean airliner pilots had higher levels of accidents. This is because in Korean culture the command pilot is God and the copilot's job is to sit down, shut up and do as he is told.

Again, that's not meant to be any sort of endorsement of the US of A, or any sort of condemnation of any other culture, it's just different. (Also, note that frighteningly authoritarian regimes can encourage tactical innovation in the military. The 3rd Reich, which is the poster child for "evil authoritarian regime" trained its officers to improvise in tactical situations.)

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The 3rd Reich, which is the poster child for "evil authoritarian regime" trained its officers to improvise in tactical situations.)

Yeah, but the Luftwaffe was a relatively new establishment with many actual combat pilots in high ranks and having influence on decisions. Göring, Udet, Galland, just to name a few. And with Hitler being more interested in tactical details than in the strategic big picture. The Luftwaffe was more perceptible to the experiences and inventions of individual pilots than the RAF or the IJN. This has more to do with the special sociologic composition of the Luftwaffe than with the authoritarian nature of the Nazi state.