>Japanese thoughts on the p38.
>
>According to Saburo Sakai, a Japanese ACE with 64 victories wrote,
>"The P-38 first used in combat against the Zeros appeared to lack
>any distinctive features other than speed at great altitudes and
>very high diving speed.
>The strange Lightnings made their combat debut in the Solomon
>Islands during the fall of 1942.
Actually, the Japanese ran into the P-38's for the first time in June
of 1942 over the Aleutians. I suspect that Sakai is referring to his first
encounters.
The first P-38's to arrive in the SWPA were those of the 9th FS,
49th FG during the first week of October, 1942. The P-38's deployed
to Guadalcanal did not arrive until mid November. The 5th AF had 'em first.
>Soon they were appearing in ever-
>increasing numbers, often challenging our Zero fighters. To the
>great delight of our pilots the P-38 pilots would attempt to
>dogfight with the Zeros, which managed to shoot down many of the
>enemy fighters.
Once again Sakai has been hitting the sake too much. The first air to
air encounter between the Japanese and the P-38 resulted in 15
Japanese shot down to only one P-38. In fact, total P-38 losses to
Japanese fighters from 1 Oct. 1942 thru 1 Jan. 1943 were exactly two!
Losses to the Japanese at the hands of the P-38 are estimated at
between 23 and 28 during that same time period. Why were they so
successful? The pilots flying the P-38's had been fighting and defeating the
Japs for the past 8 months flying P-40's. They had already learned the hard
way not to turn with Zero's and Oscars. Back in the Spring of '42, the 5th
AF rookies went into combat trying to dogfight with the Zeros. They took a
beating until experience and the veterans of Java taught them what Chennault
tried to teach the USAAC a year earlier.
I don't know what twin engine aircraft Sakai & Co. thought they were shooting
down, but they weren't P-38's. There was not even 100 P-38's in the whole SWPA
until mid 1943. North Africa got most of them and Kenney had to beg, borrow and
steal the few he did get.
>(Comment: This indicate that the Zero's performance had not been
>passed on to these pilots or it wasn't headed.)
The few surviving veterans that I have spoken with, who flew P-40's
early in 1942 in the SWPA were not informed of the Zero's performance
until they arrived in theater. There, they were drilled on the Zero's ability
in a turning fight by the veteran pilots. Still, as one said, "we still didn't
believe it until we saw it with our own eyes. The Japs knocked the cockiness
out of us and quick too."
I doubt if the P-38's were engaging in turning fights. Most of the few
Lightnings sent to the SWPA went to combat experienced veteran squadrons.
However, you are otherwise correct. Not until the veteran pilots rotated home
to staff RTU squadrons, were pilots being properly instructed on how to
effectively combat the Zero and its ilk. I certainly believe that Chennault was
ignored. As do most of those writing the history of the war. I doubt anyone can
produce a document that shows that Chennault's warnings were heeded prior
to mid 1942 when experience was the teacher.
>
>I claimed that Chennault's report had *apparently* been ignored.
>Ford Says that it hadn't. Who do you think is right?
According to Walter Boyne, Charles W. King, S.W. Ferguson, Bill Pascalis,
John Makey, John Stanaway and a host of others, the USAAC did not
give Chennault's report any credence except in hindsight.
According to Boyne, "Even when the facts came from highly reputable
sources like Claire Chennault, then supervising the Chinese Air Force,
the reports were discounted." Page 96 of Clash of Wings. Boyne, by the
way is a retired USAF Col. and the former Director of the National Air and
Space Museum. He is the author of 11 non-fiction aviation history books.
My best regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
>Their great speed at high altitudes allowed them to MANEUVER into
>the most advantageous positions: then the big fighters would plunge
>from the sky to smash into the hapless Zero Fighters.
>(Comment: Note Sakai's use of the word maneuver. If the Zero was
>more maneuverable, how could this happen?)
Erik, that's a silly word game. One could replace "maneuver"
by "position themselves", and the sentence would still be entirely
correct --- probably more so. AFAIK Sakai doesn't even speak
English, so what's the point?
>(Comment: It was not long ago, that I said Chennault had sent the
>Zero's performance figures to the War Department, which cautioned
>against dogfighting. I also said that his report was ignored. A
>frequent poster to this NG says I was wrong that it had been
>disseminated to those concerned. If this was true, WHY did the P-38
>pilots initially tried to dogfight the Zero? Also if true, why did
>it take American pilots almost one year after Pearl Harbor to find
>out the hard way, how to combat the ZERO?
I said that good information on the A6M was available in
Washington, entered in the official information sources, and
distributed to the pilots. I did not say that the correct
conclusions were drawn --- on the contrary.
US information about the A6M was not only from Chennault's
report: According to John Prados in "Combined Fleet Decoded",
a naval attache in Japan even managed to climb into the cockpit
of one during an airshow! (No, he did not fly it.) There were
also Chinese reports on the Chendu Zero and on the interrogation
of captured Japanese pilots. By December 1941 the US military
had fairly accurate performance specs and outline drawings.
The problem was that many people couldn't believe that the
Japanese would build an aircraft like that. For example, an
USMC report on the A6M praised the type's performance,
but said that it had poor manoeuvrability.
It is often assumed that Western sources were prejudiced against
the Japanese and assumed that all their technology was inferior.
This is often true, but there were exceptions. For example, "Hap"
Arnold rated the Japanese air force as first-class already in 1937...
The US military was confused, but not entirely blind.
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://hipe.uia.ac.be/cc/.)
.................BIG SNIP.............................
> This is Odd since we had a fighter that was superior to the Zero in
> every way. The higher ups must have had their heads up and locked.
>
> What was so unbelievable about the Zero. The CW 21 excelled over
> the A6M2-21 in every attribute, including climb (5200 ft/min, dive
> 450 IAS, and the ability to turn in a smaller circle. The CW-21's
> empty weight was 3150 pound with a one thousand horse power engine.
> Now compare this to the Zero.
Erik,
I know you flew the CW 21, and the early Curtis Hawks. What I would like
to know is how they "felt" in flight, the sort of thing that I can not
find in a spec-sheet. As a favor to me and the others who want a better
understanding of pre-war early-war aircraft, could you please give us a
short post on what it was like in them.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Shilling
My thanks,
Dino Germano.
Dino in Reno
Sakai was clearly referring to tactical manouvering, ie. using speed
and climb advantage to get to favourable position. Exactly same
phrase and tactic was used by Finnish Bf-109G pilots to beat P-39's
and Yaks which both could outturn and outroll Gustav.
I agree with you that turn radius is not only measurement of
maneuverability, but with this sort of 'silly word games' as
Emmanuel put's it, you're only hurting your cause.
Curiously, almost all references claim that La-5 was more
maneuverable than 109G, yet Gustav had smaller turning radius. And
to follow same theme, RAF comparison report between FW-190 and
Spitfire V mentions "FW-190 is more maneuverable than Spitfire V
except in turning circles where it is outturned without difficulty".