Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service

Were Japanese Aircraft good? How capable were they compared to US Aircraft during the war?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    they were really good until they weren't

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fippy bippy

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At the beginning of the war they were better. By the end of the war they were way, way worse.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It all boils down to mapower. Jap Naval Aviation was the best in the world up to getting rekt in Midway when they lost their better pilots and couldn't replace them.

    Japs (and Germany) sent out pilots until they died or the war ended because they didn't have the resources and manpower to pull them back to train new pilots.

    The US had a cheat code called having manpower to replace whatever losses they incurr and even being able to build TWO training aircraft carriers in the frickling Great Lakes free of any danger.

    The IJA had way better late war planes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ah, so China will be largely advantaged in a war against Japan, Taiwan and the US

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japs lost relatively few pilots/aircrew at Midway, it was the meat grinder that was Guadalcanal that really destroyed them.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were better than everyone thought, but not superweapons. The zero had great range and agility but shit durability. They had some other good stuff but came too little too late.

    Really though, their problem wasn’t bad planes, it was that they were running out of trained pilots and avgas. Always rotate your pilots folks.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was the Akutan Zero really THAT game changing of a find?
    People act like it turned the tides of the war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Those people are wrong. Specifications for the next generation of US planes were already going to frick Zeroes, and due to various errors in repairs the Atukan Zero underperformed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Akutan Zero
      discovered July 1942
      >Hellcat
      first flight June 1942, first production unit October 1942
      >Corsair
      first flight May 1940, first production unit July 1942

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >memecat and copeair
        The US would've been far better served to build as many F3F's as possible, instead of wasting resources on developing unproven and experimental airframe designs. The fifi family of fighters were reliable and easy to maintain, had adequate power and a superior BFM performance compared to later designs, it was a grave error to not utilize this advantage further. Monoplanes are a technological dead end

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          get back in the fricking box pierre

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >we could have literally tens of thousands of these instead of a single F-35
          What are congress doing? Are they stupid???

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not Pierre enough
          >We've tried over and over and over again to make monoplanes work, they don't. Right now in Europe we are learning that once more.
          >The brilliant German ace von Richtofen scored 80 kills in a Fokker Triplane. Clearly this shows the way forward is more wings, not fewer.
          >Von Richtofen flew in an open wienerpit. Enclosed wienerpits will hamper a pilot's vision, and are a technological dead end.
          >Cannons are far too heavy for anti aircraft units to operate in the field. Effectively, no army battalion will be able to bring forward any cannon AA, they will not be able to keep up with the advance.
          >Thus, the most effective airplane should be a biplane (if not a triplane) with an open wienerpit armed with only two rifle calibre machine guns, as God and Richtofen intended.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            P.s. radios will only weigh the machine down and render it unable to dogfight. Pilots should communicate with hand signals and drop notes to ground forces in sandwich cases.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Are you a ground chief in the IJN air arm, by any chance?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, but it makes a great training aid to see what kind of nuance mistakes you should avoid.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They dominated in the first month or so when they had the element of surprise, massive numerical advantage, and fighting the 4th or 5th string pilots who were considered unfit for anything useful for the real war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >massive numerical advantage
      Lmao. Japan never had number advantage with Zeros. And they dominated from mid 1940s to early 1942 they keep doing operations impossible for any other country pre 1943.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >And they dominated from mid 1940s to early 1942
        >mid 1940s
        The war in Pacific started on Dec 7, 1941.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So? Zeros were fighting since mid 1940 and against western fighters and pilots months before PH.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Zeros were fighting since mid 1940 and against western fighters and pilots months before PH.
            Wtf is this moronation?
            If you're talking about the Flying Tigers, they were a poorly funded outfit flying P-40s that still outfought the more modern IJA fighters.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              More modern IJA fighters? the Ki-27? lmao.

              And China received aircrafts from the Soviet Union, France and United States pre 1941.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                IJA had KI-43s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That didn't fight against the FT before Dec 1941.
                Most FT victories were against bombers beyond the range of their escorts or Ki-27. By the time the Ki-43 was in service the allies lost all the territory between SEA and India.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >China received aircrafts from the Soviet Union
                fricking Polikarpov I-16s!
                >France
                fricking Dewoitine D.510s!
                >United States pre 1941
                only the P-40s were any good, the Peashooters were about as bad as Claudes and the biplanes don't bear thinking of

                That didn't fight against the FT before Dec 1941.
                Most FT victories were against bombers beyond the range of their escorts or Ki-27. By the time the Ki-43 was in service the allies lost all the territory between SEA and India.

                >By the time the Ki-43 was in service the allies lost all the territory between SEA and India
                Hayabusas were used in the Malayan campaign

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Japan did nothing in the Pacific until muh pearl harbour
          I know you'll never forget it, but things actually happened outside of Hawaii, you mouth breathing moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >China is Pacific
            your brain on weeb

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Japan never had number advantage with Zeros
        They had something like 500 to 30 advantage in the Philippines, a similar edge at Singapore. Not necessarily all Zeroes but we are talking about IJN air service not just zeroes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Most IJN fighters were A5M and some bi-engines.
          In the Pacific any japanese single engine was "Zero" (IJA and IJN) in the same way as the tiger was "everywhere" in France.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Most IJN fighters were A5M and some bi-engines.
            Ki-27s and A6Ms, actually
            the twin-engines were various bombers

            >In the Pacific any japanese single engine was "Zero" (IJA and IJN)
            we have post-war orbats to look up now, that excuse is void

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they keep doing operations impossible for any other country pre 1943.
        Operation Compass was more impressive than Singapore, homosexual

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think an amphibious landing followed by aggressive maneuver warfare through terrain every bit as hostile to human life as the Sahara while also outnumbered 2:1 is more impressive seeing as Japan was essentially conducting an expeditionary campaign as opposed to a counteroffensive from an existing major supply base. And this is coming from someone who thinks the Italians get way too much shit for their performance in WWII and all of Rommel's greatest achievements were made primarily with Italian soldiers.

          P.s. radios will only weigh the machine down and render it unable to dogfight. Pilots should communicate with hand signals and drop notes to ground forces in sandwich cases.

          In all seriousness and to be completely fair to the Japanese, nobody was prepared for just how god-awful the magnetic interference was in the South Pacific especially. A6Ms always came with radios, it was the shielding in them that was removed for weight savings, rendering them useless in that particular geographical area and hence pilots took them out for further weight savings. The shielding thing was rectified. Of course in 20/20 hindsight it looks stupid because we know about the magnetic interference now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >terrain every bit as hostile to human life as the Sahara
            the Japs stuck to roads and villages
            the Brits went more off-road in the desert than the Japs did
            also the Malayan Peninsula isn't massive, about the road distance from Cairo to Tobruk
            >while also outnumbered 2:1
            nope
            the Jap order of battle outnumbers the British in terms of trained infantry battalions, admin and colonial clerks don't count; furthermore the Brits were only half-equipped with heavy weapons (or in the case of about a third of the Australians and some of the Indians, no weapons at all)
            in addition, the Japs had total regional naval supremacy, totally cutting off the entire Malayan peninsula from supply; and an overwhelming aerial superiority, essentially swarming the British fighter defence with bombers

            frankly, I'm more impressed by the Jap performance in Burma than in Malaya

            in contrast, Operation Compass defeated a well-equipped Italian expeditionary force made up of 150,000 (nominally) trained infantry, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of artillery pieces, and hundreds of fighters; all while the Mediterranean was contested and by no means under effective British control
            it can perhaps be argued that the Italian infantry were not trained up to regular standards of the Italian Army. I'm not sure about that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The Malayan Campaign was impressive when taken into account that it was a half-assed invasion that was the literal B plan for imperial expansion. There was a vague idea of how the invasion was going to happen, but nothing detailed. Japanese ground forces during that invasion were just making shit up as they were going. You are correct that the British forces in Malaysia were under-equipped, but they were also straight up delusional in how dismissive they were of the capabilities of the Japanese.

              It's funny, Churchill believed all the way to his grave that the invasion was a well-planned and well-coordinated strike; that Japanese intelligence must have spent years studying British force composition in the region and had spies everywhere. In Churchill's mind, it was the only way Singapore could have fallen that quickly. When in reality, it was an ad-hoc invasion that the Japanese pieced together quickly, aided by the incompetence and lackadaisicalness of the British Army.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >half-assed invasion that was the literal B plan for imperial expansion
                the units involved spent a full year preparing for the campaign, down to jungle acclimatisation training in Indochina
                >they were also straight up delusional in how dismissive they were of the capabilities of the Japanese
                they weren't dismissive; they were doing what they could knowing it wouldn't be enough
                >Churchill believed all the way to his grave that the invasion was a well-planned and well-coordinated strike; that Japanese intelligence must have spent years studying British force composition in the region and had spies everywhere
                it was and they did
                > In Churchill's mind, it was the only way Singapore could have fallen that quickly
                this part however is either Churchill fricking up, or him claiming that Singapore is a "fortress" for propaganda value. he did that often.

                reality is that before WW2, British plans to fortify Singapore against an anticipated IJN assault relied on having 1 year's notice of increasing hostilities AND a stable situation in Europe or elsewhere, so the entire Fleet, the RAF, and the BEF could be concentrated in Malaya and preparations to fortify Malaya could be made
                obviously, this wasn't anywhere near possible by 1941

                >incompetence and lackadaisicalness of the British Army
                we can only judge that they were incompetent or slack if they didn't exhaust all resources or employed subpar tactics; they didn't. given the operational situation, they did as best as they could.

                it suited Churchill - and the temperament of the British public - to paint a picture of doom and gloom however.

                The Japs lost relatively few pilots/aircrew at Midway, it was the meat grinder that was Guadalcanal that really destroyed them.

                no, it was the carrier battles
                they had just enough properly experienced crews to man their 6 main fleet carriers at the start of the war
                they lost 1 CAG equivalent with each of the battles they fought, replacing them only with carrier qualified but less experienced pilots

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the units involved spent a full year preparing for the campaign, down to jungle acclimatisation training in Indochina

                And for years the IJA had been training most of their units for winter warfare with the anticipation that Plan A, the invasion of Siberia, was going to succeed. Japan's invasion plans before 1941 were all focused on the Soviet Union, and the Malaya plan was drawn up by less than a dozen staff officers in six months. In fact, most of the IJA equipments were cold weather gear; they were ill prepared for a jungle campaign.

                >they weren't dismissive; they were doing what they could knowing it wouldn't be enough

                Read the intelligence reports the British had compiled on the IJA and the IJN. Their assessments were straight delusional such as the belief that Japanese couldn't make good pilots because their short stubby legs had a hard time reaching the peddles.

                >it was and they did

                No it wasn't. This is pure British cope to excuse the failure of the defense of Singapore. There's no evidence on the end of the Japanese that they did any extensive intelligence gathering on the city.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the belief that Japanese couldn't make good pilots because their short stubby legs had a hard time reaching the peddles
                can you post the report because this sounds fricking hilarious

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >most
                but not the units specifically earmarked for Malaya
                >Japan's invasion plans before 1941 were all focused on the Soviet Union
                they were focused on winning the war in China, but before the end of 1940 switched to the Strike South plan
                >the Malaya plan was drawn up by less than a dozen staff officers in six months
                ridiculous
                the military intelligence unit alone had more officers than that, never mind the IJA and IJN officers tasked with planning the attack
                furthermore, the Japanese were collecting intel on Singapore since at least 1930, picrel
                >most of the IJA equipments were cold weather gear
                not the ones in Malaya
                >they were ill prepared for a jungle campaign
                the 5th Division had been preparing since late 1940; the 18th since April 1941
                >such as the belief that Japanese couldn't make good pilots because their short stubby legs had a hard time reaching the peddles.
                nonsense
                >No it wasn't
                Yes it was

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >no, it was the carrier battles
                At Midway they lost 248 planes with ~100 pilots lost. At Guadalcanal they lost nearly 700 planes and 1200 aircrew. Midway was devastating to the Japs not because of aircrew losses, but 2/3s of their main fleet carrier strength getting sunk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well, if you count Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz as part of the Guadalcanal campaign, I'd agree

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Those are two high marks in 6 months of constant air combat by units at Rabaul, Lae, Buka, and Shortlands grinding down trained IJN aviators. It wasn't just the carrier pilots, you had very experienced land-based units like the Tainan Kokutai (Saburo Sakai's unit if that helps drive this home for you any better) just getting ground down day after day. To put this in perspective, if you're losing on average 2% (just to throw out a number) of your air group's fighting strength a day to disease, accidents, lack of parts, and combat, your unit is going to be combat ineffective in less than a month. In reality, the Tainan Kokutai lost something like 75% of its pilots between August and November, and it wasn't the only IJN fighter unit operating from shore during that campaign.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the Japs stuck to roads and villages
              >it's ok anon, as long as you're on the road or in a straw shack you can't get malaria or yellow fever
              Do you realize how moronic you sound yet?
              And no, the Japanese routinely sent light infantry through straight up jungle to outflank blocking UK forces on those roads and in those villages, usually successfully. Both the UK and Japan advanced around 500 miles in these respective campaigns. The Japanese did it on far thinner logistical support.

              also outnumbered 2:1
              >nope
              >the Jap order of battle outnumbers the British in terms of trained infantry battalions, admin and colonial clerks don't count
              Why do you think the numbers for all the battles coming down the Malay Peninsula include 2nd line support troops and fricking colonial admin sitting in Singapore? Why do you assume overall campaign numbers likewise include those troops but not the same dudes for Japanese regiments who are bringing all the supplies down from Khota Baru and successive captured ports? Unless you're claiming the Japanese were so impressive they could rout tens of thousands of UK troops over a 2 month period using nothing but the bag of rice and 30 rounds of ammunition they landed with, or the UK so utterly inept the same was possible.

              >all while the Mediterranean was contested and by no means under effective British control
              This doesn't matter because the UK still had the mostly safe, though far longer route of supplying Alexandria the long way around Africa through the Suez, whereas Japanese reinforcements and supplies were liable to interference initially to ABDA and the various Pacific submarine fleets.

              how the frick was it considered ok for the ki-43 to enter service with nothing but two .30 cal machine guns, or one .30 and one .50 if you're lucky? did they just expect everyone to follow their lead and stop building planes with armor?

              Because as much shit as the IJN gets for autistic maneuverability requirements, the IJA was worse up to that point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >malaria
                Like I said, the 2 main Japanese divisions had already acclimatised. About half of the British-Indian "troops" weren't even properly trained, and at least a third of the Australians were fresh off the boat, unused to the climate.
                >being on the road in the jungle is exactly the same as being in the middle of the desert
                You've never lived in the tropics, or in the desert, and you've never been to Malaya.
                The desert campaign produced way more wear and tear on men and materiel. For example, in Malaya, water is abundant; you just need to disinfect it with water purifying tablets. Much of Malaya is plantation; they just looted villages for food (and bicycles).
                Conversely, the North African desert is relatively deserted, had little food surplus, and oases limit water supply. The population of Libya in WW2 was under 1 million. The population of Malaya was 5 times that.
                > the Japanese routinely sent light infantry through straight up jungle to outflank blocking UK forces on those roads
                I know
                in the desert campaign, the Brits went deeper into the desert than the Japs did into the jungle
                what the Japs did in Malaya (and Buna Gona) were relatively short hooks through the jungle, no more than a day's march or even less.
                when the Japs tried going deeper innawoods in Burma, they died en masse to the resulting logistics problems
                >Why do you think the numbers for all the battles coming down the Malay Peninsula include 2nd line support troops and fricking colonial admin sitting in Singapore?
                Because I've actually looked up what the British Orbat was for the Malayan campaign, whereas you're probably just going off Wikipedia.
                > using nothing but the bag of rice and 30 rounds of ammunition
                Nonsense
                The Jap ground troops outgunned the British in armour and artillery, brought more ammo, and had the support of large numbers of more modern fighters and bombers, outnumbering British combat aircraft nearly 3 to 1. And I repeat, naval supremacy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they keep doing operations impossible for any other country pre 1943.
        You mean operations like
        >Wake Island
        Require two fleet carriers, 4 cruisers, 8 destroyers, and 2500 naval infantry to take one island defended by a battalion and 12 aircraft? or

        >Battle of the Philippines
        Two first-rate divisions with attached tank regiments against 1 scout division made of flip natives armed with springfields + a bunch of flip police forces. Japs had 541 aircraft including 107 Zeros.

        Truly unthinkable.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imperial Japan's trauma at the hands of Hellcat pilots left a cultural imprint in their identity that directly leads to the predominance of rape in Hentai

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ... what?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dr. Jordan Peterson posts here on occasion.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on which aircraft you're comparing.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The general trend is that the Japanese and German designs were pretty good but Americans were a bit better by the end of the war.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a bit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ki-84
        vs
        F6F, F4U-1D and during the last months F4U-4

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how the frick was it considered ok for the ki-43 to enter service with nothing but two .30 cal machine guns, or one .30 and one .50 if you're lucky? did they just expect everyone to follow their lead and stop building planes with armor?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      same reason why the Curtiss P-36 Hawk, Boeing P-26 Peashooter, Dewoitine D.520, Macchi C.200, Yakovlev Yak-1, and yes even the Bf109 A model has only 2 or 3 machine guns. it was the inter-war standard, and the result of the accepted solution to the difficulty of air combat: have fewer guns and more ammo, and try to "walk" the shots onto the target. do this often enough and the enemy goes down.

      the Hurricane was a trend-setter in mounting the comparatively frickawesome bank of eight .303 Brownings, and the alternative tactic of trying to aim right and then just tearing through the aircraft with irresistible firepower in a brief 1 or 2-second burst, albeit with the tradeoff of carrying about half the ammunition other fighters had.

      it turns out that the latter was the correct answer. so all fighters followed suit, all the way to this day where fighter cannons prioritise RPM over ammo endurance.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it was the inter-war standard
        1941 is no longer inter-war.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Zero was dominant until the Corsair came out, Japan had the best fighter aircraft in the world for a short period of time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Zero was barely trading equally against the F4F

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Japan had the best fighter aircraft in the world
      the Spitfire V and Fw190 were both ahead, except in combat radius

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *